Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 41 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1645-H1710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

General Leave

Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 25, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 122 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the
concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 25.
Will the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 1243

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 25) establishing the budget for
the United States Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023, with
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, March 19,
2013, time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution shall be considered
for amendment under the 5-minute rule and is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 25

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that
this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal
year 2014 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
(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 2014.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, AND 2050

Sec. 301. Long-term budgeting.

TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reform of the 2010
health care laws.
Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare
provisions of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate
of the Medicare program.
Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 406. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 407. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 408. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 409. Implementation of a deficit and long-term debt reduction
agreement.

TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 501. Direct spending.

TITLE VI--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 601. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 602. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 603. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate
budgetary levels.
Sec. 604. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 605. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 606. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 607. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 608. Transfers from the general fund of the treasury to the
highway trust fund that increase public indebtedness.
Sec. 609. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/
global war on terrorism.
Sec. 610. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE VII--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 701. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 702. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 703. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 704. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 705. Policy statement on higher education affordability.
Sec. 706. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the
cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 707. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer
dollars.
Sec. 708. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction
of unnecessary and wasteful spending.
Sec. 709. Policy statement on unauthorized spending.

TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Sense of the House on the importance of child support
enforcement.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

[[Page H1646]]

Fiscal year 2017: $2,988,083,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,104,777,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,281,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,414,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,540,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,681,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,768,151,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total
budget outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $2,815,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,736,849,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,850,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,958,619,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,079,296,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,231,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,374,336,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,495,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,667,532,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,722,071,000,000.
(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 2014: -$544,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$130,257,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$71,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$54,947,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$50,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$82,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$89,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$38,480,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$16,833,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $110,073,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the
public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $17,776,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,086,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $18,343,824,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $18,635,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $18,938,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $19,267,212,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $19,608,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $19,900,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $20,162,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $20,319,503,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $12,849,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,069,788,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $13,225,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $13,362,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $13,485,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $13,648,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $13,836,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021; $13,992,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $14,154,363,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $14,210,984,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2014 through 2023 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $560,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $579,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $574,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $563,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $585,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $598,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $575,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $612,125,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $582,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $625,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $600,508,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $639,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $614,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $654,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $628,265,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $671,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $649,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $688,640,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $660,461,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $41,010,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $39,357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $40,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,019,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $41,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,821,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $42,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $43,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $44,366,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $44,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $46,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $47,304,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,030,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $27,733,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $28,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $28,994,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,641,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $29,677,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $30,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $31,088,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $31,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,275,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $32,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,886,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $33,244,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $33,991,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,344,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $1,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $1,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $1,570,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $1,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $1,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $2,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $2,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,989,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$12,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$147,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $38,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $37,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,169,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $36,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $37,295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $38,120,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $38,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $39,530,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $39,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $40,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $39,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,382,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $21,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,377,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $16,737,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $21,254,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $19,344,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,856,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $18,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,238,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $19,087,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $19,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $19,856,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $19,736,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $20,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,859,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $2,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$9,000,000,000..
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,818,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$19,413,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,398,000,000.

[[Page H1647]]

(B) Outlays, -$21,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$6,328,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$22,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$2,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$20,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$23,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$579,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$22,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$17,517,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$19,406,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$1,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$20,654,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $87,056,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $40,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $81,453,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $91,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,791,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $68,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,548,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $92,602,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $72,693,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,625,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $92,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $74,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $99,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,906,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $8,533,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $8,401,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $8,341,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $8,442,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $8,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $8,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $8,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,418,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $9,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $9,424,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,209,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $9,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,271,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $56,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $73,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,042,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $85,577,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $95,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $100,910,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $95,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $97,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $98,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $99,965,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $101,606,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,780,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $363,762,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $378,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $358,156,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $353,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $359,280,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,833,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $375,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $375,956,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $387,073,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $393,079,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $392,141,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $422,229,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $410,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $420,834,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $441,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $456,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $455,134,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $515,944,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $515,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $534,494,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $534,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $581,788,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $581,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $597,570,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $597,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $621,384,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $621,480,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $679,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $679,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $723,313,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $723,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $770,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $771,261,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $845,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $843,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $875,417,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $874,988,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $509,418,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $508,082,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $480,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $476,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $487,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $484,222,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $479,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $484,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $475,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $495,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $490,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $501,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $496,983,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $505,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $501,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $515,637,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $516,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $510,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,354,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $27,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $33,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $36,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $40,005,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $43,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,421,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $46,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $50,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $54,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $58,441,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $145,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $149,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,313,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $162,051,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $160,947,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $159,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $158,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $171,032,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $170,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $175,674,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $174,791,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:

[[Page H1648]]

(A) New budget authority, $179,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $178,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $191,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $190,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $187,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $186,882,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $51,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $53,116,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $56,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,745,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $56,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $58,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,859,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $60,495,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $62,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $64,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,950,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $70,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,561,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $72,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,195,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $21,922,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $23,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,559,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $23,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $24,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,158,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $25,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,803,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $26,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $27,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,566,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $27,821,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $28,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,116,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $341,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $341,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $367,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $405,960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $405,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $476,448,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $476,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $555,772,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $555,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $613,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $613,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $661,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $661,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $694,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $694,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $723,923,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $723,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $745,963,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $745,963,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,061,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$44,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$58,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$65,587,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$71,859,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$65,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$77,299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$82,155,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,769,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$85,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$81,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$89,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$85,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$88,897,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$85,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$92,469,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$89,323,000,000.
(20) Government-wide savings (930):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$9,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$21,577,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$9,971,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$17,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$8,873,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$13,371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,739,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$11,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$9,584,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$7,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$21,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$35,807,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$13,555,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$75,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$80,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$90,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$91,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$91,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$99,220,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$99,220,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$101,316,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$101,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$106,332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$106,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$109,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$109,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$115,049,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$115,049,000,000.
(22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism (970):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $93,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,948,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,789,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,451,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,570,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,466,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,694,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--The House
committees named in subsection (b) shall submit, not later
than ______, 2013, recommendations to the Committee on the
Budget of the House of Representatives. After receiving those
recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without substantive revision.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(2) Committee on education and the workforce.--The
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall submit changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023.
(3) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on
Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(4) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on
Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(5) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary shall submit

[[Page H1649]]

changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(6) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(7) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall submit
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(8) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways and
Means shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, AND 2050

SEC. 301. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

The following are the recommended revenue, spending, and
deficit levels for each of fiscal years 2030, 2040, and 2050
as a percent of the gross domestic product of the United
States:
(1) Federal revenues.--The appropriate levels of Federal
revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2030: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 19.1 percent.
(2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are not to exceed:
Fiscal year 2030: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 19.1 percent.
(3) Deficits.--The appropriate levels of deficits are not
to exceed:
Fiscal year 2030: 0 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 0 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 0 percent.

TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE
LAWS.

In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this 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. 402. 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
2014 through 2023.

SEC. 403. 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 2014
through 2023.

SEC. 404. 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 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 405. 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 2014
through 2023.

SEC. 406. 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 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 407. 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 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 408. 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 P.L. 106-393 in
the future and would not increase the deficit or direct
spending for fiscal year 2014, the period of fiscal years
2014 through 2018, or the period of fiscal years 2014 through
2023.

SEC. 409. IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEFICIT AND LONG-TERM DEBT
REDUCTION AGREEMENT.

In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution to accommodate the
enactment of a deficit and long-term debt reduction agreement
if it includes permanent spending reductions and reforms to
direct spending programs.

TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 501. 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 2014 is 6.7 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 2014 is 6.2 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 converts 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 repeals 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 converts the program into a flexible State allotment
tailored to meet each State's needs, increases in 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 2014 is 5.9 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 2014 is 5.3
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

[[Page H1650]]

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 VI--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 601. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform Transparency
Act of 2009 provides advance appropriations for the following
veteran medical care accounts: Medical Services, Medical
Support and Compliance, and Medical Facilities.
(2) The President has yet to submit a budget request as
required under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, including the request for the Department of Veterans
Affairs, for fiscal year 2014, hence the request for veteran
medical care advance appropriations for fiscal year 2015 is
unavailable as of the writing of this concurrent resolution.
(3) This concurrent resolution reflects the most up-to-date
estimate on veterans' health care needs included in the
President's fiscal year 2013 request for fiscal year 2015.
(b) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in
subsection (c), 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.
(c) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided
for programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to
in subsection (d)(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''.
(d) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2015, the aggregate level
of advance appropriations shall not exceed--
(1) $55,483,000,000 for the following programs in the
Department of Veterans Affairs--
(A) Medical Services;
(B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
(C) Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health
Administration; and
(2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all
programs identified pursuant to subsection (c).
(e) 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 2015.

SEC. 602. 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. 603. 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 2014 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 Implement Discretionary Spending Caps
and to Fund Veterans' Programs and Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism.--
(1) Findings.--(A) The President has not submitted a budget
for fiscal year 2014 as required pursuant to section 1105(a)
of title 31, United States Code, by the date set forth in
that section.
(B) In missing the statutory date by which the budget must
be submitted, this will be the fourth time in five years the
President has not complied with that deadline.
(C) This concurrent resolution reflects the levels of
funding for veterans' medical programs as set forth in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
(2) President's budget submission.--In order to take into
account any new information included in the budget submission
by the President for fiscal year 2014, the chair of the
Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations,
aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary levels for
veterans' programs, Overseas Contingency Operations/Global
War on Terrorism, or the 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).
(3) 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.
(c) 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 2014 and
the period of fiscal years 2014 through fiscal year 2023
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. 604. 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 2024.

SEC. 605. 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 2014 and the period of fiscal
years 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 606. 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.--(1) 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 604.
(2) Section 314(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
shall not apply in the House of Representatives to any bill,
joint resolution, or amendment that provides new budget
authority for a fiscal year or to any conference report on
any such bill or resolution, if--
(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution;
(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form
recommended in that conference report;

would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget
authority made pursuant to section 302(a) of such Act for
that fiscal year to be exceeded or the sum of the limits on
the security and non-security category in section 251A of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act as reduced
pursuant to such section.

SEC. 607. 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

[[Page H1651]]

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 housing
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, cash-basis accounting
solely uses the discount rates of the Treasury, failing to
incorporate risks such as prepayment and default risk.
(3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the $635
billion of loans and loan guarantees issued in 2013 alone
would generate budgetary savings of $45 billion over their
lifetime using FCRA accounting. However, these same loans and
loan guarantees would have a lifetime cost of $11 billion
under fair-value methodology.
(4) The majority of loans and guarantees issued in 2013
would show deficit reduction of $9.1 billion under FCRA
methodology, but would increase the deficit by $4.7 billion
using fair-value accounting.
(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. 608. 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. 609. 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 2014. 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 2014, 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. 610. 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 VII--POLICY STATEMENTS

SEC. 701. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB
CREATION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Although the U.S. economy technically emerged from
recession roughly four years ago, the recovery has felt more
like a malaise than a rebound with the unemployment rate
still elevated and real economic growth essentially flat in
the final quarter of 2012.
(2) The enormous build-up of Government debt in the past
four years has worsened the already unsustainable course of
Federal finances and is an increasing drag on the U.S.
economy.
(3) During the recession and early stages of recovery, the
Government took a variety of measures to try to boost
economic activity. Despite the fact that these stimulus
measures added over $1 trillion to the debt, the economy
continues to perform at a sub-par trend.
(4) Investors and businesses make decisions on a forward-
looking basis. They know that today's large debt levels are
simply tomorrow's tax hikes, interest rate increases, or
inflation - and they act accordingly. It is this debt
overhang, and the uncertainty it generates, that is weighing
on U.S. growth, investment, and job creation.
(5) Economists have found that the key to jump-starting
U.S. economic growth and job creation is tangible action to
rein in the growth of Government spending with the aim of
getting debt under control.
(6) Stanford economist John Taylor has concluded that
reducing Government spending now would ``reduce the threats
of higher taxes, higher interest rates and a fiscal crisis'',
and would therefore provide an immediate stimulus to the
economy.
(7) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has stated that
putting in place a credible plan to reduce future deficits
``would not only enhance economic performance in the long
run, but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to
lower long-term interest rates and increased consumer and
business confidence.''
(8) Lowering spending would boost market confidence and
lessen uncertainty, leading to a spark in economic expansion,
job creation, and higher wages and income.
(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 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. 702. 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 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.
(2) Since 2001 alone, there have been more than 3,250
changes to the code. 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 very complex.
(3) These tax preferences are disproportionately used by
upper-income individuals. For instance, the top 1 percent of
taxpayers reap about 3 times as much benefit from special tax
credits and deductions (excluding refundable credits) than
the middle class and 13 times as much benefit than the lowest
income quintile.
(4) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the
code end up narrowing the tax base by as much as 50 percent.
A narrow tax base, in turn, requires much higher tax rates to
raise a given amount of revenue.
(5) The National Taxpayer Advocate reports that taxpayers
spent 6.1 billion hours in 2012 complying with tax
requirements.
(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 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.
(8) 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. The total Federal
marginal tax rate on corporate income now reaches 55 percent,
when including the shareholder-level tax on dividends and
capital

[[Page H1652]]

gains. 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 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.
(10) The ``worldwide'' structure of U.S. international
taxation essentially taxes earnings of U.S. firms twice,
putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage with
competitors with more competitive international tax systems.
(11) 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.
(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 18 percent of the economy
throughout modern American history. Revenues rise above this
level under current law to 19.1 percent of the economy, and -
if the spending restraints in this budget are enacted - this
level is sufficient to fund Government operations over time.
(14) Attempting to raise revenue through tax increases to
meet out-of-control spending would sink the economy.
(15) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not
constitute fundamental tax reform.
(16) 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.
(b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this
resolution that Congress should enact legislation during
fiscal year 2014 that provides for a comprehensive reform of
the U.S. tax code to promote economic growth, create American
jobs, increase wages, and benefit American consumers,
investors, and workers through revenue-neutral fundamental
tax reform, which should be reported by the Committee on Ways
and Means to the House not later than December 31, 2013,
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. 703. 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
2023 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 6.2
percent per year, and under the Congressional Budget Office's
alternative fiscal scenario, direct spending on Medicare is
projected to exceed 7 percent of GDP by 2040 and reach 13
percent of GDP by 2085.
(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 Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) plus one 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 close
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. 704. 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 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 $1.319 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) 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 Statement 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

[[Page H1653]]

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.

SEC. 705. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) A well-educated workforce is critical to economic, job,
and wage growth.
(2) More than 21 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 2001-2002
Academic Year and the 2011-2012 Academic Year:
(A) Published tuition and fees for in-State students at
public four-year colleges and universities increased at an
average rate of 5.6 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 3.8 percent per year beyond the rate of
general inflation.
(C) Published tuition and fees for in-State students at
private four-year colleges and universities increased at an
average rate of 2.6 percent per year beyond the rate of
general inflation.
(4) Over that same period, Federal financial aid has
increased 140 percent beyond the rate of general inflation.
(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 nearly tripled between 2004
and 2012, and now stands at nearly $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 2015 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
$5,645 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.

SEC. 706. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) According to the last available estimate from the
Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were
expected to hold $698 billion in unobligated balances at the
close of fiscal year 2013.
(2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending
made available by Congress that 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 Statement 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 make it a high priority
to review unobligated balances and identify savings for
deficit reduction.

SEC. 707. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF
TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The House of Representatives cut budgets for Members of
Congress, House committees, and leadership offices by 5
percent in 2011 and an additional 6.4 percent in 2012.
(2) The House of Representatives achieved savings of $36.5
million over three years by consolidating House operations
and renegotiating contracts.
(b) Policy.--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.

SEC. 708. 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 and 2012, the Government Accountability Office
issued reports showing excessive duplication and redundancy
in Federal programs including--
(A) 209 ``Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics'' (``STEM'') 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) 13 programs, 3 tax benefits, and one loan program to
reduce diesel emissions; and
(F) 94 different initiatives run by 11 different agencies
to encourage ``green building'' in the private sector.
(4) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion each
year for information technology. 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) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108 billion in
improper payments in fiscal year 2012.
(6) 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.
(7) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal
year 2014, 42 laws will expire, possibly resulting in $685
billion in unauthorized appropriations. Timely
reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of
program justification and effectiveness.
(8) 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 Statement 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. 709. 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

[[Page H1654]]

programs that in the committees' judgment should continue to
receive funding.

TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure that
States have the necessary resources to collect all child
support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass
100 percent of support on to families without financial
penalty; and
(2) when 100 percent of child support payments are passed
to the child, rather than administrative expenses, program
integrity is improved and child support participation
increases.

The CHAIR. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in
House Report 113-21.
Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. The adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent
resolution for amendment.
After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 113-21.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SEC. 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2014.

(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2013 and 2015 through 2023.
(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 2014.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social Security.
Sec. 103. Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses.
Sec. 104. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the Senate.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to replace sequestration.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve funds to promote employment and job
growth.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve funds to assist working families and
children.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve funds for early childhood education.
Sec. 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax relief.
Sec. 306. Reserve fund for tax reform.
Sec. 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to invest in clean energy and
preserve the environment.
Sec. 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for investments in America's
infrastructure.
Sec. 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's servicemembers and
veterans.
Sec. 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher education.
Sec. 311. Deficit-neutral reserve funds for health care.
Sec. 312. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for investments in our Nation's
counties and schools.
Sec. 313. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a farm bill.
Sec. 314. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for investments in water
infrastructure and resources.
Sec. 315. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for pension reform.
Sec. 316. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for housing finance reform.
Sec. 317. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for national security.
Sec. 318. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for overseas contingency
operations.
Sec. 319. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for terrorism risk insurance.
Sec. 320. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for postal reform.
Sec. 321. Deficit-reduction reserve fund for Government reform and
efficiency.

TITLE IV--BUDGET PROCESS

Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

Sec. 401. Discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2013 and 2014,
program integrity initiatives, and other adjustments.
Sec. 402. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 403. Adjustments for sequestration or sequestration replacement.

Subtitle B--Other Provisions

Sec. 411. Oversight of Government performance.
Sec. 412. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative
expenses.
Sec. 413. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 414. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 415. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 501. Direct spending.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $2,038,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,290,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,646,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,833,891,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,973,673,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,111,061,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,245,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,400,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,592,212,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,800,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,991,775,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $0,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $20,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $40,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $55,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $70,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $82,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $95,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $115,534,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $135,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $149,801,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $159,630,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $3,054,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,963,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,046,506,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,211,506,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,386,445,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,568,528,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,779,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,973,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,136,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $4,350,282,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,492,138,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $2,956,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,997,884,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,082,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,240,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,382,809,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,542,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,749,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,926,818,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,103,496,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $4,323,224,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,451,446,000,000.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $917,984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $706,952,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $435,783,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $406,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $409,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $431,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $504,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $526,674,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $511,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $522,724,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $459,672,000,000.
(5) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate levels of
the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $17,113,638,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $18,008,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,626,857,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $19,222,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $19,871,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $20,558,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $21,312,959,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $22,094,877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $22,863,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $23,634,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $24,364,925,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $12,274,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $13,059,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,588,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $14,081,252,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $14,574,683,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $15,081,187,000,000.

[[Page H1655]]

Fiscal year 2019: $15,669,625,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $16,297,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $16,929,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $17,600,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $18,229,414,000,000.

SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $669,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $731,717,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $766,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $812,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $861,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $908,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $951,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $994,855,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $1,038,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $1,083,586,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $1,129,163,000,000.
(b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $634,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $711,355,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $756,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $805,969,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $856,933,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $907,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $962,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $1,022,374,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $1,086,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $1,154,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $1,227,009,000,000.
(c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the
Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,643,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,658,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $5,782,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,801,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $5,966,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $6,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $6,390,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,358,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $6,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $6,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $7,070,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $7,301,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,266,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $7,541,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,505,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $7,789,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,751,000,000.

SEC. 103. POSTAL SERVICE DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES.

In the Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and
budget outlays of the Postal Service for discretionary
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $262,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $272,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $272,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $294,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $318,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $356,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,000,000.

SEC. 104. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2013 through 2023 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $648,215,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $658,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $560,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $599,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $567,553,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $575,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $575,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $575,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $582,648,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $590,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $574,884,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $598,867,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $587,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $607,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $595,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $616,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $603,369,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $625,569,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $617,186,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $636,480,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $621,603,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $58,425,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $47,883,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,508,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $46,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $47,521,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $48,666,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,792,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $49,831,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,157,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $51,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $52,194,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $52,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,801,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $54,417,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,209,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $55,664,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,212,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,154,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $29,700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,301,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,022,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $31,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $31,749,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $32,508,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,962,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $33,264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $34,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $34,795,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,073,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $35,590,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $36,396,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,643,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $6,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,122,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $4,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $4,061,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,068,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $4,185,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,543,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $4,309,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,786,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $4,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $4,622,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $4,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,536,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $4,875,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,696,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $5,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,862,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $5,072,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,913,000,000.

[[Page H1656]]

(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $44,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $42,919,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $42,872,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $44,055,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,394,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $45,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $47,245,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $48,036,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,112,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $49,596,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $50,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $51,331,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,862,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $52,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,703,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,373,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,777,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $22,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $20,180,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $19,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $19,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,289,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $19,613,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,087,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $19,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $20,379,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $20,588,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,116,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $21,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,626,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $21,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,959,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $-30,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-24,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $16,201,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $10,733,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-2,394,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $11,112,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-4,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $11,827,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-5,624,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $14,224,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-3,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $16,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-6,483,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $16,984,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-6,238,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $17,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-981,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $17,226,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-2,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $17,334,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-3,032,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $100,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $88,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $88,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,092,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $89,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,855,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $90,186,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,577,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $91,115,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $91,977,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,757,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $93,143,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $94,330,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $95,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $103,395,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $96,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,364,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $51,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,409,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $24,992,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $25,362,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,033,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $25,808,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $26,360,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,216,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $26,442,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $26,610,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $27,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,873,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $27,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,154,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $28,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,487,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $29,098,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,953,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $77,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $78,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,546,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $89,537,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $96,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $106,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $117,961,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $111,494,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $123,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $119,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $117,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $120,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $122,546,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $121,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $124,565,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $123,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $126,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $125,845,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $365,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $361,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $420,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $415,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $500,356,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $493,639,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $554,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,173,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $611,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $614,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $648,773,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $648,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $685,879,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $684,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $732,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $721,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $764,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $763,469,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $808,026,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $806,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $852,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $851,028,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $511,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $511,240,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $535,596,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $535,067,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $540,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $540,205,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $586,873,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $586,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $602,495,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $602,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $626,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $626,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $687,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $686,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:

[[Page H1657]]

(A) New budget authority, $734,468,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $734,051,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $782,452,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $782,386,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $855,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $855,061,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $883,491,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $883,062,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $544,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $542,998,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $530,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $526,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $528,197,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $524,043,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $537,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $536,196,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $536,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $531,153,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $538,914,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $529,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $565,188,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,677,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $578,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,775,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $592,348,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $587,965,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $611,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $612,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $619,422,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $614,921,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $52,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $27,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $33,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $36,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $40,005,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $43,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,421,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $46,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $50,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $54,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $58,441,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $140,646,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $138,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $145,488,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,254,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $150,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,672,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $162,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $161,405,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,549,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $159,902,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $159,031,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $171,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $170,622,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $176,188,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $175,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $180,118,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $179,169,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $191,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $190,875,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $188,517,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $187,433,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $53,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $66,526,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,445,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $56,476,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $59,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $59,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,090,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $61,751,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $63,708,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,959,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $65,672,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,153,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $67,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,246,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $70,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,066,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $76,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,564,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,616,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,527,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $24,258,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $24,995,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $25,640,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $26,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $27,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,724,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $28,210,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,520,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $29,089,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $29,996,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $30,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,304,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $331,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $331,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $342,703,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $370,274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,274,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $419,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,485,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $506,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $608,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $608,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $683,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $683,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $752,067,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $752,067,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $806,870,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $806,870,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $859,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $859,077,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $905,971,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $905,971,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $99,868,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,853,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,073,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,343,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $1,469,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,951,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $-35,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $-42,592,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-20,217,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $-51,675,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-36,445,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $-61,088,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-48,906,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $-68,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-61,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $-76,108,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-70,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $-84,378,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-80,463,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $-92,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-89,556,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $-76,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-76,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $-75,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-75,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $-80,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-80,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $-86,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-86,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $-90,137,000,000.

[[Page H1658]]

(B) Outlays, $-90,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $-90,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-90,503,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $-97,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-97,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $-98,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-98,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $-103,177,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-103,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $-105,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-105,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $-108,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $-108,885,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

Not later than October 1, 2013, the Committee on Finance of
the Senate shall report changes in laws, bills, or
resolutions within its jurisdiction to increase the total
level of revenues by $975,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REPLACE
SEQUESTRATION.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports that amend section
251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) or section 901(e) of the American
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-240) to repeal or
revise the enforcement procedures established under those
sections, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023. For purposes of determining deficit-
neutrality under this section, the Chairman may include the
estimated effects of any amendment or amendments to the
discretionary spending limits in section 251(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 901(c)).

SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUNDS TO PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT
AND JOB GROWTH.

(a) Employment and Job Growth.--The Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more
bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference
reports related to employment and job growth, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(b) Small Business Assistance.--The Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more
bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference
reports that provide assistance to small businesses, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
(c) Unemployment Relief.--The Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
provide assistance to the unemployed, or improve the
unemployment compensation program, by the amounts provided in
such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(d) Trade and International Agreements.--The Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more
bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference
reports related to trade, including Trade Adjustment
Assistance programs or international agreements for economic
assistance, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUNDS TO ASSIST WORKING
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.

(a) Income Support.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, child
support enforcement programs, or other assistance to working
families, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(b) Housing Assistance.--The Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to housing assistance, which may include working
family rental assistance, or assistance provided through the
Housing Trust Fund, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(c) Child Welfare.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to child welfare programs, which may include the
Federal foster care payment system, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUNDS FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION.

(a) Pre-Kindergarten.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to a pre-kindergarten program or programs to serve
low-income children, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(b) Child Care.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to child care assistance for working families, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
(c) Home Visiting.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
related to a home visiting program or programs serving low-
income mothers-to-be and low-income families, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.

SEC. 305. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TAX RELIEF.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that provide tax relief,
including extensions of expiring tax relief or refundable tax
relief, relief that supports innovation by United States
enterprises, or relief that expands the ability of startup
companies to benefit from the credit for research and
experimentation expenses, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that the provisions
in such legislation would not increase the deficit over
either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.

SEC. 306. RESERVE FUND FOR TAX REFORM.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that reform the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure a sustainable revenue base
that leads to a fairer, more progressive, and more efficient
tax system than currently exists, and to a more competitive
business environment for United States enterprises, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that the provisions in such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 307. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO INVEST IN CLEAN
ENERGY AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this

[[Page H1659]]

resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, motions, or conference reports related to--
(1) the reduction of our Nation's dependence on imported
energy and the investment of receipts from domestic energy
production;
(2) energy conservation and renewable energy development,
or new or existing approaches to clean energy financing;
(3) the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
(4) Federal programs for land and water conservation and
acquisition;
(5) greenhouse gas emissions levels;
(6) the preservation, restoration, or protection of the
Nation's public lands, oceans, coastal areas, or aquatic
ecosystems;
(7) agreements between the United States and jurisdictions
of the former Trust Territory;
(8) wildland fire management activities; or
(9) the restructure of the nuclear waste program;
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INVESTMENTS IN
AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE.

SEC. 309. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S
SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports related to--
(1) eligibility for both military retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation (concurrent receipt);
(2) the reduction or elimination of the offset between
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities and Veterans' Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation;
(3) the improvement of disability benefits or the process
of evaluating and adjudicating benefit claims for members of
the Armed Forces or veterans; or
(4) the infrastructure needs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including constructing or leasing space and
maintenance of Department facilities;
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase
the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 310. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.

SEC. 311. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUNDS FOR HEALTH CARE.

(a) Physician Reimbursement.--The Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
increase payments made under, or permanently reform or
replace, the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula,
by the amounts provided in such legislation for those
purposes, provided that the provisions in such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(b) Extension of Expiring Health Care Policies.--The
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that extend expiring Medicare,
Medicaid, or other health provisions, by the amounts provided
in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(c) Health Care Improvement.--The Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
promote improvements to health care delivery systems, which
may include changes that increase care quality, encourage
efficiency, or improve care coordination, and that improve
the fiscal sustainability of health care spending over the
long term, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(d) Therapy Caps.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that
protect access to outpatient therapy services (including
physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language
pathology services) through measures such as repealing or
increasing the current outpatient therapy caps, by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
(e) Drug Safety.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a
committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports
relating to drug safety, which may include legislation that
permits the safe importation of prescription drugs approved
by the Food and Drug Administration from a specified list of
countries, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 312. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INVESTMENTS IN OUR
NATION'S COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that make changes to or
provide for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
393) or make changes to chapter 69 of title 31, United States
Code (commonly known as the ``Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act
of 1976''), or both, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 313. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A FARM BILL.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that provide for the
reauthorization of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 1651) or prior Acts,
authorize similar or related programs, provide for revenue
changes, or any combination of the purposes under this
section, by the amounts provided in such legislation for
those purposes, provided that such legislation would not
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 314. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INVESTMENTS IN
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES.

SEC. 315. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PENSION REFORM.

[[Page H1660]]

SEC. 316. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HOUSING FINANCE
REFORM.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that promote appropriate
access to mortgage credit for individuals and families or
examine the role of government in the secondary mortgage
market, which may include legislation to restructure
government-sponsored enterprises, or provide for mortgage
refinance opportunities, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for those purposes, provided that such
legislation would not increase the deficit over either the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the
period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

SEC. 317. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

SEC. 318. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

SEC. 319. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TERRORISM RISK
INSURANCE.

SEC. 320. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR POSTAL REFORM.

SEC. 321. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND EFFICIENCY.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
motions, or conference reports that achieve savings through
the elimination, consolidation, or reform of Federal
programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, or the sale of
Federal property, or reduce improper payments, and reduce the
deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years
2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years
2013 through 2023. The Chairman may also make adjustments to
the Senate's pay-as-you-go ledger over 6 and 11 years to
ensure that the deficit reduction achieved is used for
deficit reduction only. The adjustments authorized under this
section shall be of the amount of deficit reduction achieved.

TITLE IV--BUDGET PROCESS

Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

SEC. 401. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2013
AND 2014, PROGRAM INTEGRITY INITIATIVES, AND
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS.

(a) Senate Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
resolution, it shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider any bill or joint resolution (or amendment, motion,
or conference report on that bill or joint resolution) that
would cause the discretionary spending limits in this section
to be exceeded.
(2) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
(A) Waiver.--This subsection may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of
the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(B) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this subsection.
(b) Senate Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the Senate
and as used in this section, the term ``discretionary
spending limit'' means--
(1) for fiscal year 2013--
(A) for the security category, $684,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
(B) for the nonsecurity category, $359,000,000,000 in
budget authority; and
(2) for fiscal year 2014--
(A) for the revised security category, $497,352,000,000 in
budget authority; and
(B) for the revised nonsecurity category, $469,023,000,000
in budget authority;
as adjusted in conformance with the adjustment procedures in
this resolution.
(c) Adjustments in the Senate.--
(1) In general.--After a bill or joint resolution relating
to any matter described in paragraph (2) or (3) is placed on
the calendar, or upon the offering of an amendment or motion
thereto, or the laying down of an amendment between the
Houses or a conference report thereon--
(A) the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate may adjust the discretionary spending limits,
budgetary aggregates, and allocations pursuant to section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount
of new budget authority in that measure for that purpose and
the outlays flowing therefrom; and
(B) following any adjustment under subparagraph (A), the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate may report
appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out
this subsection.
(2) Matters described.--Matters referred to in paragraph
(1) are as follows:
(A) Emergency requirements.--Measures making appropriations
in a fiscal year for emergency requirements (and so
designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985).
(B) Disability reviews and redeterminations.--Measures
making appropriations in a fiscal year for continuing
disability reviews and redeterminations (consistent with
section 251(b)(2)(B) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985).
(C) Health care fraud and abuse.--Measures making
appropriations in a fiscal year for health care fraud and
abuse control (consistent with section 251(b)(2)(C) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985).
(D) Disaster relief.--Measures making appropriations for
disaster relief (and so designated pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985).
(3) Adjustments for overseas contingency operations.--
(A) Adjustments.--The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may adjust the discretionary spending
limits, allocations to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, and aggregates for one or more--
(i) bills reported by the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate or passed by the House of Representatives;
(ii) joint resolutions or amendments reported by the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
(iii) amendments between the Houses received from the House
of Representatives or Senate amendments offered by the
authority of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
or
(iv) conference reports;
making appropriations for overseas contingency operations by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes
(and so designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985), up to the amounts specified in subparagraph (B).
(B) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--
(i) for fiscal year 2013, $99,670,000,000 in budget
authority (and outlays flowing therefrom); and
(ii) for fiscal year 2014, $50,000,000,000 in budget
authority (and outlays flowing therefrom).
(d) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``nonsecurity category'' means all
discretionary appropriations not included in the security
category;
(2) the term ``revised nonsecurity category'' means all
discretionary appropriations other than in budget function
050;
(3) the term ``revised security category'' means
discretionary appropriations in budget function 050; and
(4) the term ``security category'' means discretionary
appropriations associated with agency budgets for the
Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, the

[[Page H1661]]

intelligence community management account (95-0401-0-1-054),
and all budget accounts in budget function 150 (international
affairs).

SEC. 402. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Point of order.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill,
joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the
Houses, or conference report that would provide an advance
appropriation.
(2) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a
bill or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal
year 2014 that first becomes available for any fiscal year
after 2014 or any new budget authority provided in a bill or
joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal year 2015
that first becomes available for any fiscal year after 2015.
(b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
(1) for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory
statement of managers accompanying this resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new
budget authority in each year;
(2) for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; and
(3) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical
Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or
suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a).
(d) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under
subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(e) Conference Reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any
Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be stricken, and the Senate shall proceed to
consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede from
its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur
in the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case
may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that
portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the
case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate
shall be debatable. In any case in which such point of order
is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment
derived from such conference report by operation of this
subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.
(f) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 402 of S. Con.
Res. 13 (111th Congress) shall no longer apply.

SEC. 403. ADJUSTMENTS FOR SEQUESTRATION OR SEQUESTRATION
REPLACEMENT.

(a) Adjustments Under Current Law.--If the enforcement
procedures established under section 251A of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and section
901(e) of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 go into,
or remain in effect, the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget of the Senate may adjust the allocation called for in
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 633(a)) to the appropriate committee or committees of
the Senate, and may adjust all other budgetary aggregates,
allocations, levels, and limits contained in this resolution,
as necessary, consistent with such enforcement.
(b) Adjustments if Amended.--If a measure becomes law that
amends the discretionary spending limits established under
section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, the adjustments to discretionary
spending limits under section 251(b) of that Act, or the
enforcement procedures established under section 251A of that
Act or section 901(e) of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of
2012, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate may adjust the allocation called for in section 302(a)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to
the appropriate committee or committees of the Senate, and
may adjust all other budgetary aggregates, allocations,
levels, and limits contained in this resolution, as
necessary, consistent with such measure.

Subtitle B--Other Provisions

SEC. 411. OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE.

In the Senate, all committees are directed to review
programs and tax expenditures within their jurisdiction to
identify waste, fraud, abuse, or duplication, and increase
the use of performance data to inform committee work.
Committees are also directed to review the matters for
congressional consideration identified on the Government
Accountability Office's High Risk list and the annual report
to reduce program duplication. Based on these oversight
efforts and performance reviews of programs within their
jurisdiction, committees are directed to include
recommendations for improved governmental performance in
their annual views and estimates reports required under
section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the
Committees on the Budget.

SEC. 412. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

In the Senate, notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 2009a of title 39,
United States Code, the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the conference report on any concurrent
resolution on the budget shall include in its allocations
under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
to the Committees on Appropriations amounts for the
discretionary administrative expenses of the Social Security
Administration and of the Postal Service.

SEC. 413. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution the levels of new budget authority, outlays,
direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues,
deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal
years shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by
the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

SEC. 414. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND
DEFINITIONS.

Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in concepts or definitions, the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may make adjustments to
the levels and allocations in this resolution in accordance
with section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 415. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate,
and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of
the Senate and such rules shall supersede other rules only to
the extent that they are inconsistent with such other rules;
and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the Senate to change those rules at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as is the case of any other
rule of the Senate.

TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 501. DIRECT SPENDING.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, last year at this time I came before this body and I
offered as an amendment, as a possible replacement, the budget offered
by the President of the United States. It failed overwhelmingly. In
fact, I think it failed to receive a single vote.
I did that in order to promote a debate, and I think we had that
debate. I think that was healthy.

[[Page H1662]]

Remember, a budget is more than just a spending document. It is also
a vision document. I had hoped to be able to do the exact same thing
this year, to bring forth the President's budget to discuss not only
the spending levels in that budget, but also the vision contained in
that particular budget. Imagine my surprise then when this week came
around and we waited for the President's budget and it was not offered.
It was not offered for the first time in modern history. This is the
first time in modern history that a President has failed to offer a
budget before the United States House of Representatives took up the
topic. It's the very first time since the Budget Act of 1921. I don't
know how we're supposed to discuss the President's vision for the
Nation as contained in the budget when it's not here. I think that's
wrong.
It's required by law, Mr. Chairman. The law requires the President to
submit a budget before today. I believe this is now the third or fourth
time he's been late during his Presidency. It's inexcusable. It's
inexcusable, regardless of the party of the President, not to follow
the law and not to offer a budget.
So it's with great regret, Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to offer to you
today for discussion before this body the vision for this Nation
contained in the President's budget because no such documents exist. I
actually tried, by the way. I offered a 34-page document full of
question marks, but appropriately that was ruled out of order as not
being able to be brought forward to the House. Again, it is with great
reluctance I'm not able to offer the President's budget.
Why am I here? I'm here instead to offer as a substitute the budget
that passed the Senate Budget Committee last week. It's the first
budget to be taken up by the Senate, I believe, in 4 years. I would
like to think it's a direct result of the bipartisan action that this
body took several weeks ago in passing No Budget, No Pay. The Senate
assures us, Mr. Chairman, they were going to do a budget anyway. I took
them at their word. And I'm glad that this body was able to pass out No
Budget, No Pay in order to give them the additional incentive to do
that.
What have they done? What has the Senate offered us? What did the
Senate pass out of committee last week on entirely partisan lines? They
offered us a budget that increases taxes by $900 billion over the tax
window. In fact, that's the smallest amount. That's the amount they
admit to. If you take the Senate committee at their word, they also
want to undo the sequester and add an additional $100 billion worth of
stimulus money, and they want to do that without impacting the deficit.
You can safely assume, I believe, that it's $1.5 trillion, not $900
billion, but $1.5 trillion in new taxes out of our colleagues in the
Senate on the Democratic committee.
They increased spending by $265 billion over the baseline over the
next decade, and they also spend $4.9 trillion more than does the
Republican budget that we'll offer later today. Their spending, as
offered in their budget, grows by 4.7 percent annually, one of the
highest rates of growth other than the last several years in the
history of the Nation.
The deficit, according to their budget, in the year 2023, will be
$566 billion. In contrast, the budget that we will be offering will be
surplus in 2023. It will finally allow us to start paying down the
debt; and there are no significant reforms at all in Medicare, Medicaid
and Social Security.
How you can have a vision for this country going forward and not at
least discuss possible and reasonable reforms to those programs is
beyond me, but somehow it passed out of the Senate committee.

{time} 1250

Defense is cut by an additional quarter of a trillion dollars over
the sequester cuts that we've already had and over the reductions that
the Defense Department voluntarily took upon itself during the last
budget process.
Now, I've come before this body before, Mr. Chairman, and encouraged
this body, in a bipartisan fashion, to look to the Defense Department
as possible ways to save money, under the belief that there must be
some money in the Defense Department that can be saved in a responsible
fashion. What the Senate has done goes so far beyond that that it's
hard to fathom--an additional quarter of a trillion dollars in defense
spending reductions over the next 10 years.
Finally, perhaps most tellingly and most importantly, the Senate
budget never balances--ever. It never balances. What does that say?
They have no plan for ever repaying the debt. You cannot repay the debt
until we start moving to surplus, and any budget that never goes to
surplus never pays down the debt. I've said it before and I'll say it
again: if you borrow money from people and are never intending to pay
it back, you're not borrowing it from them--you're stealing it from
them. That's exactly what this budget contemplates: borrowing money and
borrowing money with no intention--a stated position of no intention--
to ever be able to pay the money back.

I'm glad they did it. I'm glad to think that they did it of their own
accord without ``no budget-no pay'' hanging over their heads, and I
applaud them for at least taking the first step in the last 4 years to
put forth their vision of spending and of what the future of this
country should hold. At the same time, I think it's incumbent upon us
to have this debate and then to send a very strong message to the
Senate that their ideas are not the right ideas for this country. I
hope we get a chance to debate this further.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I actually had been prepared to come to
the floor of this House and say this was a refreshing moment, that this
was going to be a moment of bipartisanship. I commend the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) for finally offering a balanced plan
to reduce our long-term deficit and a plan that will make sure our
economy grows rather than offering a plan that results in over 750,000
fewer American jobs by the end of this year, and I hope that the
gentleman will demonstrate his sincerity in the support of his own bill
by voting for it. We will be able to tell whether this is simply some
kind of stunt or a genuine effort.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, with respect to the comments about the
President's budget, I think everyone in this country knows that this
Congress was here until January 2 of this year, trying to work out a
compromise to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, and until we'd
resolved that, the President had no idea how much revenue would be
available for the budget. I think most families recognize that you need
to know how much revenue is available as you put together a budget,
number one.
Number two, we've been lurching from one manufactured crisis to
another. The sequester. You need to know how the sequester is going to
turn out before you know how much money is going to be available for
government agencies.
Finally, when the President has to put together a budget, it's not
like the budgets Members of Congress put together in which you have one
amount for all of defense or just one amount for the function for all
of health care and all of education. The President actually has to
allocate that money among different agencies. That's part of the
process. So the President will be submitting a budget now that we know
what the revenue stream is, now that we have some idea as to where we
are in terms of those other issues.
I'm glad the gentleman brought forward this alternative, because it
is the Senate Democratic proposal for the most part. Just for the
record, he has left some stuff out, but it's close enough for
negotiation and discussion purposes here.
What this measure does is, number one, replaces the sequester. It
replaces the sequester with a balanced approach to reducing our long-
term deficit so that you avoid the job losses that will result from the
sequester. Our referees, our umpires--the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office--has told us, if we allow that sequester to remain in
place, you will have 750,000 fewer Americans working at the end of this
year. We also know that you'll have 2 million fewer jobs next year.
So it's a good thing that the gentleman brought to the floor a
proposal

[[Page H1663]]

to replace the sequester. After all, in comments last year, the
Republican leader, Mr. Cantor, called for a plan to replace the
sequester, so we support that.

The gentleman talks about the Senate proposal on taxes. What he
doesn't tell you is what the Senate proposal does. Like the House
Democratic proposal, it proposes to balance the budget through a
combination of cuts but also cuts to tax expenditures. These are the
special preferences and deductions in the Tax Code. We say, yes, we
should eliminate some of those tax preferences for very high-income
individuals. Our colleagues tell us there are about $4 trillion worth
of those that mostly go to high-income individuals. We say, okay, let's
close some of those tax breaks of about $1 trillion over 10 years to
help reduce the deficit. What's different between the Republican plan
and this plan that our colleague has brought up is that they propose to
provide tax cuts for very wealthy people, financed by increasing the
tax burden on middle-income people.
We put that question to the test in the Budget Committee just the
other day. We said, if your plan doesn't propose to give folks at the
top a big tax break--because you do in your budget drop it from 39
percent to 25 percent. So a millionaire sees more than a third cut in
his rate right off the bat. So we said, well, if it's not your
intention to finance that by increasing middle class taxes, you should
support this amendment. It was called the Protect the American Middle
Class from Tax Increases, and it was very simple. It said, as part of
tax reform, don't raise taxes on middle-income people to finance your
tax breaks for folks at the very top. Every Republican voted ``no.''
So, yes, this plan that the gentleman has brought forward today,
apparently under sort of a mock bipartisanship, will reduce the deficit
in a balanced way. It calls for shared responsibility, and it certainly
does not give folks at the very top a tax break financed by middle-
income taxpayers like the Republican proposal does.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, you live in a neighborhood. You look down
the street, and there's a neighbor there. They've got new cars, and
they're remodeling the kitchen, and they take a lot of expensive
vacations. You look down the street, and you wonder: How are they doing
that? They live on the same street that we live on. How are they doing
all that stuff? And you're tempted. You sit there and think, well, why
don't we get some new cars, and why don't we redo the kitchen and take
some longer, nicer, more expensive trips. Then, one day, the sticker
goes up on the window of that house that says that they have to leave.
The moving van comes up, and the house is foreclosed upon--the cars go
away; they can't use the kitchen anymore; they're not taking any more
trips. Then you realize you made the right decision.
It was a mirage. It looked like they could pay for all that, but they
couldn't. This is an allegory for what's going on now.
The United States has neighbors in the world--Greece, Spain, Cyprus,
Japan--and they have those stickers going up, those foreclosure things
going up, because they can't pay for what they're doing. The Senate
budget that's before us follows that same path--a mirage of having a
lot of what seems to be great things, but you can't pay for them, and
eventually that eviction and that foreclosure will come.
We cannot do that. We cannot foreclose on Medicare. We cannot
foreclose on the things that we provide for people. We cannot foreclose
on the job engine that is this country. And we don't foreclose on it by
having a balanced approach, which means balancing the budget, which
means bringing the budget into balance, into line, so that those
stickers don't go up on this house we call the United States of
America.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the only comparison between these
budgets we're debating and what's going on in Europe is that the
Republican budget proposes the same European-style austerity approach
that many European countries tried, and as a result, they've seen their
economies slip back into recession. We want to avoid slowing down
economic growth in this country, which is why we're really glad that
the gentleman from South Carolina brought this particular budget
proposal to the floor of the House, and we hope he will vote for it.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to a terrific member of the Budget
Committee, the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).

{time} 1300

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. Van
Hollen.
Mr. Chairman, Democrats and Republicans agree that deficit reduction
is important; and, in fact, over the past year and a half, we've
achieved over $2.7 trillion in debt reduction. But now, the Republicans
want to take us through a charade with this Tea Party budget.
If enacted, the Republican budget would weaken America's recovery. It
would undermine what makes America great and what makes America strong,
like education, the ability of students to attend college, medical
research and innovation, the ability of our older neighbors to live
their lives in dignity in their retirement years through Medicare and
long-term care.
Now, we get a lot of advice, and economists across the board, in fact
our own Congressional Budget Office, advise that the best and fastest
way to reduce the deficit is to make sure that people across America
have jobs and are working. So it is inexplicable that the Republican
budget proposes to eliminate jobs in construction, in education,
scientific research, and instead heap the burden on middle class
families.
Experts predict that the Republican budget will result in job losses
of 2 million fewer jobs next year alone, and that's on top of 750,000
jobs lost by the end of the year due to the sequester Republicans will
not replace, just as the economy is improving for our neighbors and
small businesses back home.
In contrast, the Democratic alternative will generate 1.2 million
more jobs and stop the sequester. And in committee, Democrats proposed
to close those special interest tax loopholes that riddle our Tax Code,
and Republicans said, no. Democrats proposed to offset unwise
Republican cuts to medical research like Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes
research at NIH; Republicans said, no. Democrats tried to cut the
special interest spending in the Tax Code to offset Republican cuts to
students who rely on Pell Grants; but Republicans said, no.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Democrats in the Budget Committee proposed to strengthen Medicare and
replace the Republican plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program.
All it does is simply shift the cost to our families and older
neighbors.
Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget is not consistent with American
values. It is not fiscally responsible. It is a charade. It is a
capitulation to the Tea Party. It does not serve us well in economic
recovery and the ways we want to grow America. It's a plan for economic
weakness. It's a receding vision of American greatness in education,
scientific research and infrastructure, and dignity for our parents and
grandparents in their retirement years.
I urge you to vote ``no'' on the Republican budget and support the
balanced Democratic alternative.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 2 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Maryland has 1 minute remaining and the right to
close.
Mr. MULVANEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our
fiscal problem can be summed up in just three numbers: 39, 37, and 64.
Thirty-nine percent is the combined increase of inflation and
population over the past 10 years. Thirty-seven percent is the increase
in revenues. The third number is what's killing us: 64 percent is the
increase in spending. It's nearly

[[Page H1664]]

twice the rate of inflation and population growth.
This has never been a revenue problem; it has always been a spending
problem. Yet characteristic of other Democratic budgets, the Senate
further accelerates spending while trying to chase it with $1 trillion
of new taxes. And despite $1 trillion of new taxes, they can't ever
balance their budget. And there's a reason: because it's a spending
problem, and dogmatically trying to address it on the revenue side will
simply drive more and more spending until we become Greece or Detroit.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to close, and I yield myself
the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the last time I was at this table and was accused of
doing something for a political stunt or a gimmick was for No Budget,
No Pay. So I'll take those criticisms because I think we were able to
move in the right direction with that particular bill.
I would simply ask my friend if he's more bothered by this political
stunt or by the stunt being perpetrated by the President of the United
States for not offering a budget. We had time to do one. He had time to
do one. The President clearly had time to do one and is intentionally
not delivering it to us, and I think that does a disservice to the
entire process.
Finally, all of that said, I want to thank my friend from Maryland
for reminding us once again that only in Washington, D.C., can a cut
never cut, can a freeze never freeze, and a balanced approach to a
budget never balance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I will just ask our colleagues to take
a look at the latest analysis put forward by our own Congressional
Budget Office, the professionals, the referees here. What they tell us
is that half of the deficit in this year is as a result of the fact
that millions of Americans are still looking for work. Three-quarters
of the projected deficit next year is for the very reason, which is why
we get to the heart of the issue, by going after the jobs deficit and
then reducing the deficit in a balanced manner over a long period of
time.
The issue isn't whether we reduce our deficits dramatically; it is
how we do it. We call for a balanced approach that, yes, asks the very
wealthy people to get rid of some of their special interest tax breaks
which our Republican colleagues concede they have, but get rid of them
in part to reduce the deficit. Our colleagues refuse to take one penny
from closing tax loopholes--not one--to help reduce the deficit.
They'll only do that to help finance tax breaks for higher-income
individuals.
So, Mr. Chairman, we focus right now on jobs, growing the economy,
and a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Scott of
Virginia

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 113-21.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the
Congressional Black Caucus to offer an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014.

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014.
Sec. 2. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 3. Major functional categories.
Sec. 4. Direct spending.

SEC. 2. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $2,485,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,835,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,025,191,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,170,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,307,451,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,441,437,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,588,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,774,309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,980,999,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,175,445,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $214,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $228,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $246,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $267,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $278,500,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $292,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $304,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $317,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $330,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $343,300,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $3,325,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,188,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,291,567,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,442,524,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,623,964,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,820,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $4,017,742,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,190,085,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $4,421,398,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,575,518,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $3,155,063,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,235,190,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,354,518,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,457,686,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,608,488,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,787,194,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,966,920,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,152,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $4,389,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,531,318,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: -$669,928,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$399,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$329,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$286,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$301,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$345,756,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$378,011,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$377,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$408,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: -$355,873,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $17,946,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,528,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $19,045,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $19,571,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $20,128,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $20,723,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $21,355,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $21,990,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $22,647,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $23,273,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $13,019,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,511,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $13,927,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $14,298,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $14,674,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $15,104,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $15,583,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $16,082,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $16,638,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $17,164,000,000,000.

SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

[[Page H1665]]

(A) New budget authority, $654,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $641,132,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $51,883,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,386,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $46,867,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,023,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $48,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,986,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $49,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,842,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $50,331,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,582,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $51,504,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $52,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,159,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $53,398,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,256,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $54,917,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $56,164,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,685,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $37,675,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $32,301,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $32,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $32,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,277,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $33,008,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,894,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $33,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $34,530,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,919,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $35,295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,562,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $36,090,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $36,896,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,132,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $6,469,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,409,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $4,718,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,031,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $4,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,312,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $4,971,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,464,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $5,155,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $5,291,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,967,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $5,476,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $5,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,361,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $5,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $5,756,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,586,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $49,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $48,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $47,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $46,167,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,758,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $47,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $48,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $50,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,268,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $50,924,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,813,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $52,092,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $53,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,469,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $22,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,880,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $22,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,109,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $23,016,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,594,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $22,750,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $22,892,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $23,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $23,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $24,031,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $24,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $24,697,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,210,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $16,268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,480,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $11,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,097,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $11,537,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,686,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $12,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $14,774,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,388,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $17,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,933,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $17,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $17,649,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $21,576,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $21,684,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,318,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $226,861,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $158,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $169,966,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $114,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $143,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $99,306,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $120,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $98,555,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $99,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $108,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $97,973,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $105,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $99,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $106,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $100,546,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $101,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,033,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $42,804,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,383,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $28,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $18,296,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,768,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $14,564,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $14,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,620,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $14,222,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,720,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $14,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $14,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,696,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $15,170,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,733,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $15,494,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,895,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $197,949,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $146,873,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $148,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,216,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $121,086,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $138,654,000,000.

[[Page H1666]]

Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $123,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $130,663,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $124,754,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $132,478,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $120,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $121,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $121,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $123,541,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,776,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $125,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $124,488,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $128,190,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $126,798,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $429,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $420,123,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $502,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $497,464,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $557,280,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $563,313,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $614,808,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $617,163,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $651,773,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $652,143,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $688,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $687,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $735,629,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $724,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $768,134,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $766,611,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $811,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $809,418,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $860,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $858,599,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $524,031,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $523,502,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $526,976,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $526,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $581,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $581,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $599,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $599,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $624,422,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $624,122,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $685,561,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $685,341,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $735,048,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $734,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $786,326,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $786,260,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $862,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $862,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $894,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $894,227,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $538,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $530,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $532,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $528,373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $542,496,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $541,468,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $541,783,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $536,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $544,969,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $535,708,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $549,588,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $544,881,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $562,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $557,788,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $576,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $572,051,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $595,538,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $595,857,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $603,269,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $598,661,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $27,504,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,231,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $33,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $36,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $40,003,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $43,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,419,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $46,951,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,951,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $50,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $54,232,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,232,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $58,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,438,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $149,837,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $147,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $154,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $153,083,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $166,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $165,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $165,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $164,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $164,161,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,218,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $175,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $174,786,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $180,399,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $179,426,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $184,304,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $183,285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $196,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $194,967,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $192,651,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $191,499,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $78,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $62,473,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $61,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,686,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $60,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $62,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $64,704,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $66,668,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $68,836,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $74,870,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,220,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $77,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $76.916,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $26,041,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $26,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $27,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,801,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $28,078,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $28,940,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,430,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $29,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,120,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $30,663,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $31,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $32,460,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,765,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $33,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,721,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $342,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,387,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $369,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $417,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $417,006,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $499,379,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $499,379,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $594,921,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $594,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $664,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $664,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $725,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $725,547,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $773,662,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $773,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:

[[Page H1667]]

(A) New budget authority, $820,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $820,096,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $861,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $861,941,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $2,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,196,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $2,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,947,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $2,495,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,313,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $2,562,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,466,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $2,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,564,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $2,707,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,636,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $2,779,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2.708,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $2,854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,780,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $2,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,854,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $3,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,927,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$75,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$80,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$90,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$90,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,503,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$97,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$97,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$98,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$98,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$103,177,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$103,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$105,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$105,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$108,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$108,885,000,000.
(21) Overseas Contingency Operations (970):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $70,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,387,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $32,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $12,488,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $4,186,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,239,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $33,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $16,000,000.

SEC. 4. DIRECT SPENDING.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The underlying Republican budget dismantles the Medicare guarantee.
It cuts Medicaid in the last year by 25 percent and includes
unspecified cuts in a category called ``other mandatory spending.''
That category, of course, is Social Security and pensions for veterans
and Federal employees. And then it cuts other essential Federal
programs. It also repeals ObamaCare, but keeps in place the savings and
tax increases that pay for it. The Republican budget also includes a
$5.7 trillion tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans
and then somehow claims it will be revenue neutral by raising somebody
else's taxes by $5.7 trillion, an average of about $2,000 for every
man, woman, and child in America every year.
Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus budget on the other hand
is based on reality and uses real numbers. Our budget makes tough
choices, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. The
CBC budget calls for revenue enhancements of $2.7 trillion over the
next 10 years. The budget shows that this is a real and achievable goal
by highlighting approximately $4.2 trillion in revenue options that the
Congress could use to achieve the $2.7 trillion in new revenues, such
as limiting the deductibility of corporate interest payments, limiting
the special tax breaks and corporate loopholes that are baked into our
Tax Code, treating capital gains and dividends like regular income.
And, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, this amount is less than half of the
$5.7 trillion in tax increases assumed in the Republican budget.

{time} 1310

The revenue enhancements called for in our budget will be used to
totally cancel the sequester, to pay for a $500 billion jobs bill that
will put more than 5 million Americans back to work, and to provide for
an additional $300 billion in long-term investments in our economy
through education, job training, health care, science, and research.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Even with these additional investments, our budget is projected to
put our Nation back on a sustainable path because the deficit reduction
is more than the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission 10-year
goal.
Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget shows that we can create jobs, invest in
education, transportation, and research, and avoid devastating health
care cuts and achieve the 10-year Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction
goal. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the Congressional
Black Caucus budget.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my friend, Mr.
Scott, for bringing forward a budget on behalf of the Congressional
Black Caucus. I think it's important that we have all sorts of options
here on the floor to be able to discuss as they relate to a budget.
I would note a couple of items that he conveniently left out. One is
that

[[Page H1668]]

the budget that the CBC brings to the floor--this will come as no
surprise, Mr. Chairman--never gets to balance, which means it continues
to spend more money than the government takes in, continues to spend
more money than Washington takes in. The people of this great country
understand that we can't continue going down this road over and over
and over and over.
A couple of points that Mr. Scott made regarding the Republican
budget, which is the budget that is the base budget here that we're
bringing to the floor that, in fact, does get to balance in a
responsible way:
It saves and strengthens and secures Medicare, as opposed to the
misinformation that was provided by the other side;
It makes certain that States have the kind of flexibility so that
they're able to provide the highest quality of health care to their
Medicaid population;
It doesn't, as a matter of fact, address in a specific way the issue
of Social Security because it provides for a reserve fund so that that
is able to be addressed in a more specific way through the committee
structure, which is also the important thing to recognize about the
issue of taxes.
Our friends on the other side are so specific about what they accuse
us of regarding taxes, but, in fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, it's
the Ways and Means Committee that will ultimately define that.
A couple of items that he conveniently left out on the budget that he
is proposing is that they do raise taxes. In fact, they raise taxes by
$2.8 trillion--$2.8 trillion over the next 10 years--and much of that
increase in taxes is in the area of those who create jobs. We all know
that if you tax something, you get less of it. So by taxing job
creators, we'll get fewer jobs, and, Mr. Chairman, that's the last
place we need to be heading right now. They spend $5.7 trillion more
than the Republican budget that's being proposed, and they add another
$2.9 trillion to the debt relative to the base budget that we're
working on today.

I also want to address the issue of business taxes. They talk about
removing the incentives that move jobs overseas. Well, Mr. Chairman,
the biggest incentive to moving jobs overseas is that the United States
now has the highest business tax rate in the industrialized world. If
you're a business and you're planning on either expanding your business
or you're thinking about starting a business here in the United States
and you go to the line that says taxes, the other side of that says,
no, go somewhere else, get out of here, because taxes are lower
elsewhere, which means that jobs are being created elsewhere. We're
driving jobs overseas by virtue of our current tax structure, and our
friends on the other side of the aisle, especially with the CBC budget,
actually increase that as opposed to decrease that.
I do, however, want to commend them, once again, for bringing a
budget forward because, as you've heard earlier today and in the
conversations around the budget, the President has not. We did find it.
I found the President's budget. Here it is. Not a doggone thing on this
poster, Mr. Chairman, because the President hasn't brought anything to
us.
Now, that might be amusing to some, but the fact of the matter is
that the law states that the President of the United States is required
to present a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. That
was February 4 this year. We're a little over 6 weeks beyond that. The
President has flagrantly--flagrantly--ignored his statutory
responsibility to bring to the United States Congress a budget.
Now, some folks on the other side say, Oh, it happens all the time.
Don't worry about that. It happens all the time. Well, as a matter of
fact, Mr. Chairman, in just one term, President Obama has missed the
budget deadline more than any other President. He's now missed it four
out of five times.
In the 90 years between 1923 and 2013, President Obama is the only
President to miss the deadline 2 years in a row. He's the only
President who's missed the deadline 3 out of 4 years in his first term,
and he holds the record for the longest delay--98 days. Maybe that's
the record he's trying to beat, Mr. Chairman.
So I want to commend, again, my colleagues in the Congressional Black
Caucus for bringing forward a budget. As I say, I think it's extremely
important that we have all sorts of different ideas out here on the
floor to be able to debate and have people take a perspective on and
have the opportunity to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on. I would
respectfully suggest, however, that their budget moves this country in
the wrong direction, not the right direction, and we'll urge opposition
to their budget proposal.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a member of the Budget
Committee.
(Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, gentleman from Virginia, for yielding
me the time.
It's really my privilege to discuss the jobs program that is at the
heart of the Congressional Black Caucus budget. The Congressional Black
Caucus does acknowledge that, while me must address our debt and
deficits, in the short run, an austerity budget, as the Republicans
have proposed, hurts our economy rather than helps.
We have proposed a comprehensive jobs plan, paid for proudly with the
largesse and the revenue that the rich have received and tax reform
measures that will propel our economic recovery for everyone, not just
the haves, improve our economic competitiveness, and provide
opportunities for those communities that still have not reaped the
benefit of recent economic resurgence.
The CBC budget includes a $100 billion investment in a national
direct job creation program estimated to create 2 million jobs
directly, as well as another 800,000 jobs indirectly in the private
sector; $50 billion for school modernization; $50 billion for
preserving teacher, law enforcement, and first responder jobs, good
public service jobs that we all need; $230 billion for investing in our
Nation's crumbling infrastructure; $50 billion in rebuilding America's
neighborhoods; $13 billion in job training programs; and another $7
billion in summer jobs programs.
Our significant investment in jobs is the core reason why I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, what's the time remaining on each
side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Virginia has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), a member of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding the time.
I agree with the gentleman from Georgia. It's good to have debate.
It's good to have choices. It's good to have options, but that doesn't
mean every option is equally good. And we're faced with that situation
right here, right now, and that's why I rise in opposition to the CBC
substitute budget.
There are different ways to balance a budget. Many, most Americans,
many of us here, think that taking 20 percent of the value of a
country's GDP, like this Federal Government does and spends it, is more
than enough to run it and most anything else.
But to be fair, there are other ways to balance, and one of those
ways is to raise revenue. And I want to examine just a few of the ways
that this substitute budget proposes to run the Federal Government by
raising revenue.

{time} 1320

I see from all the different ideas here that their intention was to
take from whom they believe are the richest Americans, the wealthiest
Americans, those who haven't paid their fair share, the 1 percent,
however you want to phrase it, but let's look at it more closely.
One, taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income at a top
rate of 39.6 percent, I think this budget forgets how many middle class
Americans have 401(k)s, how many of us across the Nation invest in the
stock market, how many union members still on the old pension plans,
those dinosaur plans, still rely on the stock market for their
retirement. What are these capital

[[Page H1669]]

gains and dividends going to do to them? They're not the richest, for
sure.
Taxing financial transactions at 0.25 percent of the asset's value,
the same thing, Mr. Chairman. What about all the middle class
individuals, so many Americans in this country that rely for their
retirement not just on Social Security but on 401(k)s, union members
who rely on pensions? And what's it going to be like for them when
we're taking simply more from them from their retirement?
And then perhaps the most insidious, returning estate tax levels to
2009, not only are we taxing twice, but we are making it a bad thing,
apparently, to pass on our hard-earned wealth to our children, our next
generation. It's no way to run a country. It's immoral, in fact.
But let's assume all these tax increases. The fact of the matter is
this budget still never balances, never comes into balance. And I was
struck this morning, Mr. Chairman, by Mr. Mulvaney from South Carolina,
during his 1-minute speech, when he said, when you contract with
somebody to borrow money, that's what debt is. You intend to pay it
back. When you contract with somebody and have no intention of paying
that debt back, that's thievery.
That's exactly what we're doing, Mr. Chairman, to the children of
tomorrow, to the people that do not yet exist, that do not have a vote
in this matter. That's why I rise in support, and I urge all my
colleagues to defeat this substitute budget.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget claims to be in balance, but it's
only in balance if you assume they can raise $5.7 trillion in new taxes
and they cut $2.5 trillion in health care and a trillion dollars more
in a category that includes Social Security and pensions.
I'd also note that a great deal has been made about the capital gains
and dividend benefits in 401(k)s. I would point out to the gentleman
that in a 401(k) the people do not get the benefit of that deduction.
They don't pay any tax at all as it grows. When they draw it out, they
draw it out as ordinary income.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Let me first thank Congressman Bobby Scott for
your tremendous leadership in putting together the Congressional Black
Caucus's alternative budget; also, our chair, Congresswoman Marcia
Fudge, for her very bold vision in helping to move this forward.
As a member of the Budget Committee, as I said yesterday, I've had a
chance to get into the weeds of the Republican budget. And I can say
with certainty that I strongly support the Congressional Black Caucus
budget because it is pro-growth, pro-people, and pro-American.
I just want to follow up on the gentlewoman from Wisconsin's
comments, Congresswoman Moore, who so eloquently stated the jobs
provisions of this budget.
Let me show you the chart with regard to the 5 million jobs that this
budget creates. When you look at the fact that without the
Congressional Black Caucus's budget it will take us until April 2015 to
create enough jobs to take us back to prerecession employment, that is
not acceptable with so many people in our country who are unemployed.
This budget enhances Medicare and Medicaid.
It cancels the devastating sequester and it reins in bloated Pentagon
spending.
We actually end the Overseas Contingency Fund when the President's
goal is accomplished in 2014 of bringing our young men and women home
from Afghanistan. This is really a slush fund. It's not even funded
through the Pentagon. It's a slush fund through somewhere over at the
State Department.
This budget provides $230 billion to revitalize our Nation's
infrastructure and creates a $500 million jobs program to accelerate
the Nation's economic recovery.
To help families stay secure in their homes until the economy fully
recovers, our budget also funds a restoration of critical unemployment
benefits to the full 99 weeks.
Also, we support a real effort to eradicate poverty in America with
the 10-20-30 formula, which targets resources to communities that need
assistance.

And we call for a national strategy to eradicate poverty by cutting
it in half in 10 years.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlelady an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me just also conclude by saying our budget
protects the safety net and protects those initiatives which create
pathways out of poverty, such as the earned income tax credit, the
child tax credit, the SNAP program, food and nutrition assistance, and
the program that assists women with nutrition assistance when they're
pregnant. All of these efforts are protected in the Congressional Black
Caucus budget; whereas, the Ryan budget would cut these programs. These
are needed desperately as we move to a pathway to prosperity.
Our budget is pro-American, pro-growth, and pro-people.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would just point out to the gentlelady that,
in fact, multiple economists have looked at the budget that Republicans
have brought forward, and a couple from Stanford had an editorial, I
believe, in The Wall Street Journal this week and noted that their
review, their study, their evaluation of the Republican budget actually
demonstrates that 500,000 jobs would be produced in the first year in
the Republican budget and 1.7 million jobs in the 10th year.
So if you want jobs, there's a way to get jobs created in this
country, and it is to reward those individuals who are creating jobs.
That's what the Republican budget does.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another new member of the Budget
Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
Mr. NUNNELEE. Our friends on the other side have called for what they
label a balanced approach, but let's look at the record.
Is their quench for new taxes insatiable? At the start of this year,
they got $600 billion in new taxes due to the fiscal cliff bill that
passed. In addition, they added another $1 trillion of new taxes,
starting this year, for ObamaCare. A total of $1.6 trillion in new
taxes have been added since New Year's. But before the ink was even
dry, they began to call for even more tax increases. In fact, the
budget that we're discussing here calls for an additional $2.8 trillion
of taxes that will be paid for by hardworking men and women around
America. Taxes like, if you sell your house, you'll have to pay an
excessive tax on the gain from the sale of your house when you're in
retirement.
What do they do with their new taxes? Do they take it and pay down
the debt? No. Instead, they take these additional taxes and use it to
spend more.
This budget is not content with ObamaCare that passed a few years
ago, no. It expands that. I do commend our friends on the other side
for at least showing your intentions that you're not going to be happy
until every American is on socialized medicine. And this expands
ObamaCare.
It also expands food stamps. At a time when projections are showing
that our economy may improve, certainly we should see individuals
moving away from food stamps and on to a job supporting themselves, but
that's not what we're seeing. A measure of success of a society should
not be how many people can we put on public assistance. The measure of
success of a society should be how many men and women can we allow to
help themselves.
But this budget does cut spending in one area. It cuts into our
national defense, even more so than the President's budget that he
submitted last year. So while we're increasing spending on things that
would drain our economy and deprive our children of obtaining jobs,
we're compromising the very defense of our Nation. And when does it
balance? Never.
Mr. Chairman, I reject this budget and urge you to vote ``no.''

{time} 1330

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just
before I yield to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.

[[Page H1670]]

First of all, the gentleman just complained about the ObamaCare
taxes. What he didn't say is that the Republican budget keeps all the
taxes; they just repeal the benefits.
The Republican budget also does not cancel the sequester. The
sequester is estimated to cost 700,000 to 2 million jobs. They do not
cancel the sequester. In fact, they have additional cuts that will even
add to those job losses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank you for yielding, and for the excellent job
that you and your team did on the budget.
The CBC budget is proudly a statement of CBC, but also of American,
values. As a physician, I'm particularly proud of its investment in
health. It protects and strengthens Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, and children's health insurance; fully funds the Affordable
Care Act, adds a public health option, and includes provisions that
will reduce health disparities.
It fully funds the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, mental health and
substance abuse, maternal and child health, community health centers,
the Offices of Minority Health, and the National Institute for Minority
and Health Disparity Research at NIH.
It preserves Healthy Start, funds programs to increase the number and
diversity of the health workforce, and gives communities the tools to
improve health and well-being through restoring programs like REACH,
dental health projects, the National Minority AIDS Education and
Training Center, and other related programs. And it ensures that
minority physicians and those practicing in poor neighborhoods and
their patients will have the benefit of health information technology.
The CBC budget in its entirety addresses the socioeconomic
determinants of health, beginning with the 10/20/30 program to reduce
poverty. All of these provisions will reduce health care spending in
the medium and long term. It is a masterpiece of a budget, and I urge
everyone to vote for it. And yes, we will not be happy until every
American has access to quality health care.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains on each side, please?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Virginia has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire of my friend how many more
speakers he has?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I think we have two more speakers, including
myself.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Congressional Black
Caucus, I am so very, very proud to be here in support of the
Congressional Black Caucus budget. This is a budget with a centerpiece:
Job creation. This is a budget that is balanced. This is a budget that
is in opposition to the Ryan budget that would slash and burn and cut
and deny our senior citizens, deny our children, do away with Head
Start and many programs that the American people deserve to have.
I am a member of the Financial Services Committee, now serving as a
ranking member. I created the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The
Neighborhood Stabilization Program is a program that goes into
communities that have been devastated by foreclosures based on the
subprime meltdown that we had in this country, where so many people
were tricked into signing onto loans and mortgages they could not
afford. Thus, they went into foreclosure. These communities have been
devastated with boarded-up homes, with stray animals on the property,
with police and fire having to spend more money in these cities to try
and upkeep them. The Ryan budget would do away with the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program.

The home values must be maintained in these communities. Some people
are trying to keep up their homes, but with these boarded-up
properties, the value of the homes go down. The Neighborhood
Stabilization Program is a project that would revitalize the properties
and put them back on the market as affordable homes. Instead of doing
away with this program that helps to keep the value of our American
citizens' homes, we protect it. The Ryan budget would do away with it.
Thank the CBC for understanding how to protect our neighborhoods, how
to protect our consumers and our citizens, and how to make our
neighborhoods safe, despite the fact that we almost went into a
depression based on the financial services meltdown.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Is the gentleman ready to close?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have one more speaker outside of myself, and
then I will be pleased to close.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. We are prepared to close. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to a senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. I thank the CBC for actually coming to the floor with a
budget, something that the President of the United States has not been
able to do four out of five times, even though it is the law of the
land that he is required to do so. So I commend them for doing so.
We should look to see what is it that we agree with in this and what
do we disagree with. We do agree on several points, such as that we
want to have a just and fair Tax Code. We do agree, as we have in our
budget, to make sure that we address the most vulnerable, those people
who are out of work, the poor in the country, those who are trying hard
to make ends meet, to try to end poverty as well, to try to make sure
that there is health care in this country. But where we differ from the
CBC is the impact that their budget would have on each and every one of
these.
Their budget would have a devastating impact on those who are out of
work, those who are trying to not just get a handout, but get a hand
up; those who are looking for health care and not being able to afford
it; those who are looking for health care from the Federal Government
and realizing that within a short period of time, over the next decade,
we will see, actually, the money in the Federal Government for the
health care that they're receiving right now basically run out.
So that is why I applaud their attempt to come to the floor with a
budget. But I ask them to take a look at what the impact of their
budget will do as opposed to what the Republican budget will do. We
will actually be able to create jobs in this country. We did so before
in something called the JOBS Act, which we passed in a bipartisan
manner.
We are going to take the next step to make sure that there is a level
playing field in this country versus other countries, to bring back
those jobs that have been lost to other foreign nations and bring them
back into this country as well. We will be able to reform the system
with regard to the poor. We will be able to provide for a system that
provides for the American family in a fair and just Tax Code.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself the balance of the time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus
budget reacts to this chart which shows the recovery over past
recessions.
This recession has been deeper and longer than any others. We still
haven't gotten the jobs back. At the rate we're going, we're not going
to get the jobs we lost in the 2008 recession for another 2 years.
That's why it's important that the Congressional Black Caucus has a
budget that has $500 billion in jobs. That will create about 5 million
jobs as soon as we can get the money out the door, 5 million jobs,
which will significantly reduce the impact of that recession. That's in
stark contrast to the Republican budget, which maintains the sequester.
The suggestion there is that 700,000 to 2 million jobs would be lost.
So we have a choice: 5 million jobs or lose jobs. We have a choice in
terms of investments in education, transportation, scientific research,
investments in our future, or cuts in those investments.
We have a credible path to achieve the Simpson-Bowles 10-year goal
rather

[[Page H1671]]

than a budget that depends on $5.7 trillion in unspecified tax
increases to offset their $5.7 trillion tax cut that they say is
revenue neutral. Also, it is a budget that requires massive cuts in
Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs, pensions, and
everything else that will adversely affect those most in need.
The one-third cut, 25 to 30 percent cut in Medicaid, we have to
remember that two-thirds of the Medicaid expense goes to the elderly
and disabled. What is their plans for them if you're cutting Medicaid
by 25 to 30 percent?
We can do better. We can have a progressive, pro-people, pro-growth,
pro-jobs agenda; or we can have the devastating cuts in the Republican
budget, which has $5.7 trillion unspecified tax cuts in it if you
believe they will come up with that kind of money.

{time} 1340

I think we should make the right choice. That right choice is the
Congressional Black Caucus budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would, once again, remind my
friends on the other side of the aisle and those listening that the
Republican budget creates 500,000 jobs by the end of the first year,
and it will result in over 1 million jobs in the 10th year. It's
important to appreciate that. And I agree with my friend on the chart
that he has about the jobs decreasing, the deepest and longest period
of poor job growth in any recession. He's absolutely right. He's
correct on that.
But what this budget does that he proposes is doubles down on
policies that don't work. Spending money that we don't have is not a
prescription for more job creation. A little honesty, Mr. Chairman, on
this: only in Washington, as the American people know, is spending at a
lower rate a cut. More spending at a lower rate in this town is a
reduction, is a cut accused by the other side.
The fact of the matter is that the Republican budget increases
spending on average 3.4 percent each year over the next 10 years. It's
a responsible budget. It's a budget that actually gets to balance,
which means that we don't spend money at the end of this budget that
Washington doesn't have, and gets us on a path to paying off the debt.
It's that way that we realize that we can create jobs for the
American people, we can ensure that young people in this country will
be able to get out of college and be able to find a job in their sphere
of education, and we can make certain that seniors have the kind of
services that they need, the kind of things that have been destroyed by
the current administration and by the budget being proposed on the
other side. The Republican budget is a responsible budget.
I urge that Members of our party vote down the budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Chair, every year since 1981, the Congressional Black
Caucus has offered a fair and balanced alternative budget.
The CBC Alternative Budget for fiscal year 2014 is a ``Pro-Growth,
Pro-People, Pro-America'' budget. It acknowledges that only by
investing in people can you build a bridge to a better America.
America doesn't need an austerity budget. Americans need and deserve
more.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the CBC ``Pro-Growth, Pro-
People, Pro-America'' Budget Alternative.
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to ask my colleagues to reject
the budget put forth by Chairman Ryan and the Republican led Congress
and support the FY 2014 Congressional Black Caucus Alternative Budget,
the Congressional Progressive Caucus Alternative Budget, and Democratic
Substitute Budget. These budgets will protect our families, put
Americans back to work, restore fairness to our tax code, and make
critical investments in education, transportation, innovation,
research, and job creation.
The proposals submitted by the Republicans would undermine vital
programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP. The Ryan budget cuts
programs that assist low-income families, communities of color, young
children, students, older people, individuals with disabilities, the
unemployed, and the uninsured.
Specifically, the CBC Alternative Budget proposes a balanced plan
that focuses on economic growth, invests in communities, and creates
economic opportunity for all.
The CBC budget:
Cancels the sequester; creates a $500 billion jobs program to
accelerate the Nation's economic recovery; provides $230 billion in
investments for America's crumbling infrastructure; reduces the deficit
by $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years; addresses the Medicare Doc
Fix;. protects and enhances Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP,
and TANF; proposes the 10-20-30 plan which targets resources to the
communities that need assistance the most; addresses health disparities
through full funding for the Affordable Care Act and strong support for
the National Institutes of Health.
Again, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Ryan Budget that does
not balance the budget, and will harm our children, seniors, and the
middle class, and to vote for resolutions that strike a sensible
balance between revenue increases and spending cuts.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Grijalva

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 113-21.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014.

(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2013 and for fiscal years 2015 through
2023.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

TITLE II--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 201. Direct spending.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

[[Page H1672]]

amounts of the deficits (on-budget) are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: -$1,438,928,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$1,198,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$604,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$351,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$268,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$279,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$313,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$290,123,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$259,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$278,762,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: -$213,184,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $17,613,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $19,003,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $19,765,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $20,279,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $20,770,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $21,296,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $21,853,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $22,392,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $22,904,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $23,427,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $23,907,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $12,796,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $14,077,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $14,748,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $15,161,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $15,497,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $15,842,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $16,234,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $16,620,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $16,995,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $17,418,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $17,799,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2013 through 2023 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $653,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $660,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $627,358,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $635,421,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $533,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $577,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $532,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $551,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $530,339,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $532,738,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $541,142,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $529,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $552,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $543,703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $564,996,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $554,057,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $578,612,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $566,536,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $590,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $583,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $602,317,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $590,707,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $65,925,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,487,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $74,304,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $66,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,181,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $65,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $63,666,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $64,831,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,854,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $66,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $67,194,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $68,583,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,824,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $70,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,778,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $72,773,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,420,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $32,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $37,175,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $40,301,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $39,769,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $39,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,035,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $40,008,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $40,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,150,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $41,530,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,803,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $42,637,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $43,783,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,636,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $44,950,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,747,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $13,743,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $19,469,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,073,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $24,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $21,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,112,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $19,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $19,655,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,379,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $19,791,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,469,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $19,976,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,497,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $20,737,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,895,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $21,566,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,611,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $22,365,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,305,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $47,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,568,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $50,432,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,904,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $53,006,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,853,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $52,956,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,745,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $53,167,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,651,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $54,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $55,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,818,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $57,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,063,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $58,266,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $59,785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $61,590,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,084,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $21,672,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,076,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $16,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,152,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $17,610,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,325,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $19,582,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,155,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $19,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,532,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $17,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $16,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $16,614,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $17,120,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,629,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $17,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $18,007,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,531,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$26,748,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$22,618,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $23,768,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,315,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $21,033,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,477,000,000.

[[Page H1673]]

Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $20,287,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,522,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $19,877,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $22,274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,181,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $24,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,562,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $25,034,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $25,491,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,080,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $29,769,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,131,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $30,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,422,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $17,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $263,861,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $269,513,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $264,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $271,121,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $266,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $272,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $242,306,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,082,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $218,555,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $223,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $194,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $199,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $145,973,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $151,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $126,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $133,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $128,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $135,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $130,141,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,190,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $55,661,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $32,292,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $35,262,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $34,558,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,313,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $33,860,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,971,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $33,942,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,217,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $34,110,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $34,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,267,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $35,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,664,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $36,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,272,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $37,652,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,057,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $395,738,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $432,087,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $432,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $254,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $254,901,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $144,145,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $139,641,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $136,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $132,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $142,254,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $140,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $137,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $136,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $139,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $138,048,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $142,068,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $140,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $145,371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $142,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $148,853,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $146,217,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $372,555,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $365,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $433,346,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $423,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $517,470,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $505,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $569,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $623,582,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $626,442,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $659,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $660,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $696,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $695,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $743,148,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $731,584,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $776,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $774,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $820,495,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $817,824,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $870,473,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $867,771,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $507,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,750,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $525,793,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $525,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $547,282,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $546,984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $593,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $593,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $608,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $608,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $631,481,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $631,181,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $691,031,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $690,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $738,756,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $738,339,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $787,726,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $787,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $862,162,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $861,813,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $893,584,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $893,155,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $633,048,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $624,494,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $703,311,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $690,186,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $730,956,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $717,121,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $642,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $639,242,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $606,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $602,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $609,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $600,361,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $615,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $610,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $630,836,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $626,001,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $648,963,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $643,247,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $672,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $671,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $685,213,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $678,911,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $52,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $27,504,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,231,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,306,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $33,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $36,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $40,003,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $43,319,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $46,751,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,751,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $50,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $53,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $58,038,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,038,000,000.

[[Page H1674]]

(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $148,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $142,631,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $159,837,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $154,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $169,547,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $164,297,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $179,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $177,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $175,689,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $175,506,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $174,161,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $173,463,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $185,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $184,884,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $190,399,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $189,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $194,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $193,415,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $207,392,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $205,643,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $204,760,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $202,814,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $56,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,006,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $73,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,265,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $66,476,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,460,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $68,687,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $67,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,880,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $69,251,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,961,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $71,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,454,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $73,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,548,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $75,682,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,757,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $82,067,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $85,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,045,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $25,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,263,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $24,631,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $25,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,575,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $26,055,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $26,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,335,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $27,614,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,156,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $28,524,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $29,388,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $30,298,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $31,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,595,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $32,175,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,579,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $332,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $332,829,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $350,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $350,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $379,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $379,747,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $433,511,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $433,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $526,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $526,898,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $629,965,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $629,965,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $701,785,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $701,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $763,921,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $763,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $810,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $810,359,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $852,930,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $852,930,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $890,245,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $890,245,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $2,320,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,262,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $2,367,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,971,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $2,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,241,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $4,287,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,648,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $6,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $6,372,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,541,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $7,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,467,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $6,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $6,589,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $6,704,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $6,823,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,809,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$76,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$75,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$80,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$90,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$90,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,503,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$97,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$97,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$98,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$98,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$103,177,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$103,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$105,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$105,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$108,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$108,885,000,000.

TITLE II--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 201. DIRECT SPENDING.

[[Page H1675]]

(A) Medicare is a cornerstone of the American health care
system for more than 45 million America seniors. It is an
exemplary program that provides the most efficient care to a
segment of the population that costs more to treat. The Back
to Work Budget protects beneficiaries and makes the system
even more efficient. It amends Part D of Medicare to allow
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate
prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers,
as the Department of Veterans Affairs currently does, which
will save Medicare $157 billion over 10 years and will reduce
costs for seniors. The budget adopts policies to prohibit
``pay for delay'' agreements that reduce competition and
modifies periods of exclusivity to increase availability of
needed therapies. The budget also accelerates the use of
bundling payments as an alternative to fee-for-service
payments. It builds on Affordable Care Act efficiencies in
administration of information and payments. Using
standardized electronic systems for administration
information such as claims, billing, payments and eligibility
creates a more efficient and less fragmented health care
system.
(B) The bulk of agriculture commodity subsidies go to large
corporate farms that grow commodity crops such as corn,
wheat, cotton, rice, and soybeans. These crops are often
grown using unsustainable methods that require high levels of
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, leading to polluted
waterways and degraded soil. The Back to Work Budget
eliminates certain commodity subsidies, which will save
billions, while reducing environmental impacts.
Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution
setting forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal year 2014 and including the appropriate
budgetary levels for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2015
through 2023.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, in presenting our Back to Work budget, a
budget of the Progressive Caucus of this House, we are first pleased to
announce that in less than 48 hours, 105,000 citizen cosponsors have
joined with us in presenting this budget. They are pleased to affirm,
and the point of this is House Budget Committee chairman,
Representative Paul Ryan, has released a budget proposal that is the
most reckless austerity plan he's ever proposed. Instead, we get a
budget that will slow the economy and kill jobs.
We urge you to vote for the Progressive Caucus' Back to Work budget
which will grow the economy, create 7 million jobs, and ask the wealthy
and multinationals to pay their fair share so we can make investments
in our people and our future--105,000 citizen cosponsors in less than
48 hours.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the cochair of the Progressive
Caucus, my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just congratulate
everybody with the Progressive Caucus and thank all of the staff that
did such a good job preparing this excellent budget which gives us an
amazing choice as Americans to confront this jobs crisis. I'm so proud
that our Speaker has told the world--Speaker Boehner--that the debt
crisis is not immediate. He's right, it's not. But let me tell you what
is immediate: the jobs crisis.
That's why the Back to Work budget brings down unemployment to 5.3
within 3 years by investing in people--our construction workers, our
teachers, and our police officers. We're also fiscally responsible,
reducing the deficit over the long run by $4.4 trillion.
The Republican budget makes the wrong choices for our country. I
respect the fact that they have honestly projected a vision, but it's
an austere vision for the American people. It's no surprise that this
message lost the election that we just had. It was put in front of the
people. They said we will have none of it, but the American people do
want what's in the Back to Work budget.
Gallup released a poll that confirms what you and I already know, and
that is that the American people want jobs, not austerity; 72 percent,
Mr. Chairman, of Americans said that they support putting people back
to work repairing our Nation's infrastructure, including a majority of
Republicans.
Now, the fact is that the Back to Work budget is about putting people
back to work. As the Speaker and I agree, it's not the moment where we
need to clamp down on debt. It's the moment we need to put Americans
back to work. So which budget meets the test? The Progressive Caucus
budget invests at the level the American Society of Civil Engineers
says is needed to close our infrastructure gap. The Republican budget
cuts transportation by 20 percent.
Mr. Chairman, it's time to get back to work, and let's pass the Back
to Work budget.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. GARRETT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as they say, in opposition to the
Progressive Caucus substitute. While my friends across the aisle are
motivated by good intentions, I believe that their substitute is,
frankly, a blueprint for fiscal disaster. Instead of restoring the
certainty to the economy by promoting fairness and providing American
families the opportunity for more prosperity, this budget is simply a
black hole for American families.
I can at least give credit to both the Progressive Caucus and the
Democrat Caucus for offering a budget because the President of the
United States has failed to do so. As you are aware, on February 4, the
President, as required by law, is to give us a budget. It's March 20
now; and the American people, well, we're still waiting. That is the
fourth time in 5 years that President Obama has failed to submit a
budget on time and failed to abide by the law.
The Senate Democrats, well, they're not much better. It has taken
them almost 4 years to produce a budget that basically now increases
government spending by $265 billion, taxes up by almost $1 trillion,
and cuts health care providers by almost $300 billion. Over the period
covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan are nearly $4
trillion larger than those under the House plan.
So, today, we have a Progressive substitute on the floor. This budget
will do what? It will raise taxes by almost $6 trillion over the next
10 years, including a new tax on carbon. $5.7 trillion in new taxes
necessarily means greater tax burdens on who? The American family.
These tax cuts put job creators in the penalty box again, and that
means more Americans will be where? Without jobs.
These tax policies are deceptively sold under, really, a warped
notion of what ``fairness'' is. The reality is this ``fairness'' of
theirs is merely a heavy-handed government taking from one pocket and
putting in another pocket.
This budget's tax policy is based on the equality of outcome rather
than equality of opportunity. When he's talking about equality, Milton
Friedman once pointed out that a society that puts equality before
freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality,
however, will get a high degree of both.
So true fairness is the freedom to manage and direct one's own life
and one's own future. Those who take risks giving their all in the
pursuit of the American Dream deserve to keep what they've earned.
Those who work hard day in and day out, they deserve to keep what
they've earned.
But the Progressive budget is nothing but regressive. There's nothing
fair about this budget, especially to the risk-taker or to the
hardworking American family. Their budget would spend nearly $9
trillion more than the Republican budget. Note, now, when I say those
numbers--where does that money come from--that means from our children
and our grandchildren. They ultimately will be the ones who will have
to bear this burden.
This budget would also establish a government-run health insurance
option under ObamaCare and let the government basically set price
controls on drugs. What does that mean? That means for those who were
around back in 1970s, I think that's most of us, price controls on
gasoline. How did that work out for us? Not too long. Waiting lines for
gas is one thing. Waiting lines, however, for lifesaving medicine is a
whole other story.
This budget would also expand the current, broken, and failed Federal
job-training program without any reform whatsoever. This budget calls
for even more money for the bureaucrats in Washington with regard to
education, and this budget calls for even more

[[Page H1676]]

money into the broken-down highway transit system that we have in this
country.

{time} 1350

And this budget even fails in the government's first responsibility--
providing for the common defense. This budget further goes and guts the
Defense Department by calling for almost $700 billion in cuts to the
Pentagon compared to our budget.
This Progressive substitute then would put this country basically on
the wrong path. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, there is some adage about if you do the
same thing over and over again without changing it, that that is a mark
of insanity. That adage applies to the Ryan budget 2, the same as Ryan
budget 1, and to 10 years of failed fiscal policy that our budget, by
putting people to work, attempts to get us out of that fiscal black
hole.
With that, let me yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California,
Congresswoman Lee.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank Congressmen Grijalva and Ellison
for their bold and visionary leadership of the Progressive Caucus.
As a member of the Budget Committee opposed to the job-killing
``Pathway to Poverty'' Ryan budget, I stand in strong support of the
Progressive Caucus Back to Work budget. The number one priority of the
Progressive Caucus budget is fixing the job crisis. That is exactly
what we want to do in our Back to Work budget. That is what it does.
Most economists argue that job creation equals deficit reduction. The
CPC budget asks the wealthiest 1 percent, Big Oil, and huge
corporations to pay just a little more so we can invest in the American
people and create 7 million American jobs.
Our budget saves over $1.8 trillion in bloated Pentagon spending by
eliminating the Overseas Contingency Operations account, which really
is a slush fund that has funded two wars off budget. We refocus our
resources into a modern military able to face 21st century threats.
We also require the Pentagon, the single largest Federal agency, with
the highest waste, fraud, and abuse, to pass an audit test and pass it
now. It is the only Federal agency not subject to an audit.
Our budget replaces the disastrous sequester by supporting critical
spending in education, infrastructure, and we reject benefit cuts to
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Lankford.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to give support to what is
happening for the Path to Prosperity. It is a responsible budget.
And I also rise to encourage my colleagues. It is a good thing for us
to come down and get a chance to talk about budgets and where we are
headed. It is a good thing to propose multiple options to be able to
have this kind of dialogue about where we are headed as a Nation. This
is what is happening in the Senate this week as well. For the first
time in 4 years, the Senate has an ongoing dialogue about budgets and
about the future.
While almost $6 trillion of debt has been added to our children, we
have not done a budget between the House and the Senate in almost 4
years now. It is time to be able to do that. I encourage my Senate
colleagues as well, and congratulate them for also taking this up.
I do look forward to one day seeing the President's budget. I did see
today in the news that the President has released his final four
bracket for the NCAA men's basketball bracket, but we have yet to
actually see his budget. At some point, we hope to be able to see our
national priority be on budgets, not on NCAA brackets, in the days
ahead.

The budget that we are proposing focuses on families that need
certainty. The way that you budget and you plan for the future and the
way to set aside finances for the future is some kind of certainty in
what is happening. We don't have that right now as a Nation.
For most families that actually live month to month, they don't have
a large amount of resources to set aside for future investment. If a
ticking debt bomb is coming for them, they expect the people in
Washington to actually pay attention to that so that the little bit of
money they can set aside for retirement doesn't blow up in some giant
debt crisis in the days ahead.
This is a moment to deal with our debt. The budget that we are
proposing is a responsible budget that takes 10 years to slowly start
to bring us back into balance. Only in Washington is a drastic
draconian cut actually reducing the increase.
What the Ryan budget does, what we are proposing, is a 1.6 percent
decrease on the increase. Right now, the Federal budget is scheduled to
increase by 5 percent over the next 10 years. We will actually just
increase the budget 3.4 percent. I would say that is fairly modest.
That is a way to be able to deal with what is happening in the Nation,
and it is also a way to deal with what is happening to come in the days
ahead.
We are not promoting additional stimulus spending as the budget that
is being proposed now is. A giant proposal for additional spending did
not help us several years ago. What was promised right now is that we
would be at 5\1/2\ percent unemployment rather than still hovering near
8 percent unemployment, as we have for so long now.
Jobs do not come from additional Federal spending long term. If you
want real jobs, it has to be in the private sector. That is the only
thing that can be sustained; otherwise, you are dependent year after
year after year with additional taxes and additional spending. We need
to have the private sector be engaged in this. The way to do that is to
encourage the private sector with some level of stability.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me yield 1 minute to the gentlelady
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
support the Back to Work budget. The Back to Work budget puts jobs
first, which is actually the best way to reduce our deficit. Jobs equal
deficit reduction.
Our budget will create nearly 7 million jobs and bring unemployment
down to 5 percent in 3 years. It protects Social Security and
strengthens the critical benefits of Medicare and Medicaid. Our budget
responds to what the American people say they want: job creation, more
revenues from those who can afford to pay, and smart spending cuts that
target waste, not opportunity.
A new Gallup poll released today found that more than three-quarters
of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support Federal
Government efforts that focus on creating jobs. Americans don't want
austerity or tax cuts, more tax cuts for the rich. They want jobs, good
jobs.
So you can vote for good jobs by voting for the Back to Work budget.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who
played a critical role in fashioning the budget that is before us, the
Republican budget, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, like speakers before me, I am thankful and appreciative
that others are proposing substitute budgets. It is good to have
options, Mr. Chair. It is good to have a debate. But not all options
are equally good, so I rise against the substitute budget that is now
before us.
Admittedly, there are a couple of different ways and a combination
thereof that you can balance a budget: spending cuts--and, by the way,
when a Federal Government already takes, on average, 20 percent of the
value of all the goods and services that a country produces, a lot of
us think that is more than enough to run the government and that
spending reductions are actually the solution.
Revenue increases might also get you to balance. That is certainly
what this Progressive substitute tries to do. Nearly $6 trillion in tax
increases over the next 10 years. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, they
don't get to balance. It doesn't happen. $6 trillion more of the
people's property this budget confiscates, and they still can't balance
the budget.
Why is balancing the budget so darn important? Well, a couple
different reasons. You cannot start paying off the

[[Page H1677]]

debt until you get to a balanced budget so that you have a surplus to
start paying that debt down.
So their intention, Mr. Chair, is not to pay down the debt. That is
what they are stating in this budget, and, frankly, that's immoral.
If you intend to pay a debt back in any contractual situation, or
even in this country's budget situation, it is called a debt. When you
take money from future generations, when you take money from people
that don't yet exist with no intention to pay it back, as this budget
does, have no intention to pay it back, it is called thievery, and
that's wrong. That is why this budget needs to fail.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, when, in the course of the last decade-
plus, multinational corporations, billionaires in this country have
been curried favor with tax breaks, loopholes that have allowed them to
pay less than the average American, that has hurt the economy. And I
would suggest that, aside from thievery, that is gaming the system and
not sharing in the full responsibility we all have as Americans to take
care of this country.
I would now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin,
Congressman Pocan.

{time} 1400

Mr. POCAN. The number one issue before our country is not the
deficit; it's getting the economy going and creating jobs. We have 12
million people who are still unemployed and millions more who are
underemployed in this country. That's why the best budget we could put
forward is one that creates jobs, not one that costs us 2 million jobs
as is estimated by the austerity policies of the Republican Party. It's
not just the Congressional Progressive Caucus that says this. Our
Congressional Budget Office says that three-quarters of the deficit
we're going to see in 2014 is caused by underemployment and
unemployment.
The real enemy to deficit reduction is not a new made-up spending
crisis; it's the need for jobs.
The Back to Work budget makes a real commitment to job creation,
creating 7 million jobs and reducing unemployment to 5 percent within 3
years. It invests in education, in police, firefighters, teachers,
infrastructure; and it ends the job-killing cuts of the sequester.
Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and
the neediest, the Back to Work budget has the back of America's middle
class, and it does it while responsibly reducing the deficit by $4.4
trillion.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Back to Work budget.
Mr. GARRETT. In recognizing that we can create the jobs and the
prosperity by not raising taxes at the same time, I yield now 3 minutes
to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. It's time for our Nation to get our priorities right;
and according to the Constitution, there are only a few things that we
should be doing here in Congress. One of them is to provide for the
common defense; but, sadly, this substitute bill guts our national
defense and leaves us very vulnerable as a Nation. Let's review where
we've been.
A couple of years ago, Defense made some efficiencies under Secretary
Gates and cut $78 billion. Then with the Budget Control Act,
immediately, $487 billion more was cut from the national defense. Then
sequestration has kicked in, which is another $500 billion from
national defense, and this proposed budget here goes even beyond that.
Our Republican budget replaces cuts from the sequester back into the
national defense and keeps it a priority. It makes sure our men and
women in uniform have what they need, but this budget cuts an
additional $658 billion from the Pentagon. Even Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta earlier said that, with sequestration, it would hollow out
our forces. So, certainly, this would do even more.
With sequestration, if we don't replace it, which this budget does
not, we're going to see 100,000 fewer soldiers and marines; the Navy
will likely have to mothball 60 ships, including two carrier battle
groups while a quarter of our bombers would be jeopardized; we would
also see the elimination of 250 fighter aircraft and higher fees for
military health care. Now, that's not providing for the common defense.
In addition, if sequestration is not overturned, for which our budget
allows, then we could see up to 2.1 million jobs cut.
They're calling this budget a Back to Work budget, but when our men
and women in uniform come back from Afghanistan, instead of being met
with ticker tape parades, they're going to be met with pink slips. It's
wrong, and we can do better.
There are serious ramifications. Our budget replaces those cuts, and
it's needed. There are threats in the world, and this is no time for us
to be cutting our defense. We have Iran threatening not only our
neighbors, but us; and it is getting closer to having a nuclear
capability. We have even this week North Korea shooting off a missile
and putting out YouTube videos of that missile coming here and hitting
not only cities of the United States, but even the U.S. Capitol. In
addition to that, there are radical Islamists around the world who
still want to harm us.
Now is not the time to cut our national defense. We need to keep our
priorities right. We need to provide for the common defense. We need to
pass the Republican House budget and reject this substitute that will
hollow out our forces and endanger our families.
Mr. GRIJALVA. The Back to Work budget sets a level of 2006 for
defense. Pentagon spending has doubled over the last decade; 2006 was
the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on
terrorism. We just celebrated the 10th anniversary of Iraq. There has
been $2.2 trillion spent on that war--a war, I might say, that was not
paid for at all. This does not cripple defense; this merely brings it
to a realistic level so as to share in the reconstruction of this
economy of ours.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Waters).
Ms. WATERS. I want to thank Mr. Ellison and Mr. Grijalva for their
leadership with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
I rise in support of the Back to Work budget. Let me just say it
again--back to work. This is what this budget is all about, ladies and
gentlemen--investment in our infrastructure. We have bridges that are
falling apart, streets that need repair, water systems that need
upgrading. We can create jobs. The Republicans and the Ryan budget talk
about jobs. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.
I tried to get an amendment on the TIGER program, which would
increase the funding for jobs in transportation that we need so badly.
They rejected that. They rejected that because they're focused on
making sure that they give tax cuts to the richest people in this
country, making sure that they keep those tax loopholes for the
privileged--not investing in America's future and in America's growth.
The people are expecting us to make them their priority, to make sure
that we are investing in opportunities for them, their families, their
children, and their neighborhoods. No, the Ryan budget pays no
attention to any of that. These privileged people on the other side of
the aisle, who don't have to worry about jobs and who don't have to
worry about any of that, deny the people the right to just participate.
Mr. GARRETT. I would ask the Chair how much time remains on both
sides.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 3 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Arizona has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GARRETT. That being the case, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Back to Work budget is the first
budget that recognizes the truth about our so-called ``deficit
crisis'': we don't have one. Speaker Boehner and Chairman Ryan went on
television on Sunday and said that there is no immediate crisis, that
it is the unemployment numbers we should be worried about.
Now is not the time for austerity. It is the time for the government
to invest where the private sector won't. They're sitting on their
money, waiting. This is the time to bolster our new and growing
industries, like biomedical

[[Page H1678]]

research and technology. Now is the time to rebuild our infrastructure.
Creating jobs, as this budget does, is the only way we will become
self-sustaining. With lower unemployment, fewer people need public
assistance, and more people pay taxes. That's how you shrink the
deficit. That's fiscal responsibility.
My Republican colleagues love to talk about balancing household
budgets. Well, I don't know any American family that would use its
children's lunch money to pay down its credit cards, and that's what
they're proposing in the Ryan budget. Most families choose to invest in
college educations, health care and retirements, trading current debt
for future returns.
It's time to choose what kind of country we're going to live in. Do
we grow with education, investments and a strong social safety net; or
do we cut our way to higher unemployment, instability, and class
divide?
Mr. GARRETT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget,
which will increase unemployment and savage Medicare and Medicaid and
other programs that families depend on, mostly to finance tax cuts for
the rich and partly to fix the deficit crisis that we have already
tamed. In 2009, the deficit was 10.1 percent of GDP. Next year, it will
be down to 5.3 percent. This is the largest and fastest reduction in
deficits since the demobilization after World War II.
To add insult to injury, the Republican budget would make sweeping,
regressive changes to the Tax Code, which would raise taxes on middle
class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would actually
see a tax cut averaging $245,000 a year. This is just wrong. Working
families should never have to pay more just so the rich can pay less.
We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. With 12 million
people searching for employment and with almost 5 million Americans
without jobs for more than 6 months, we do have a jobs crisis.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of the
Republican budget would be to decrease the gross domestic product by
1.7 percent, resulting in 2 million additional jobs lost in 2014 alone.
If budgets are truly a reflection of our values, then what does it
say about the priorities of House Republicans when their budget
increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million jobs, and hits
middle class families with a tax increase in order to subsidize another
tax cut for the rich?

{time} 1410

In contrast, the Back to Work budget addresses the jobs crisis head
on by creating nearly 7 million jobs in the first year, by making stark
investments in our infrastructure, schools, and transits. It protects
Medicare, Medicaid, education, and family support systems.
Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity
policies offered by the Republican budget. The result has been a
double-dip recession and 12 percent unemployment. We should learn from
their stupidity.
I rise today to oppose the radical Republican budget, which is merely
a repackaging of the same extreme agenda that the American people
rejected last fall.
Simply put, this bill is a disaster.
The House Republicans' budget would again try to end Medicare as we
know it by replacing the guarantee of health coverage with a private
voucher program that would reduce benefits. This throws seniors back
onto the mercy of the private insurance market, while every year giving
them less and less of the health benefits they have earned through a
lifetime of hard work.
The Republican budget would not only make permanent the arbitrary,
across-the-board budget cuts known as `sequestration,' it would go
further--making even more savage cuts to domestic programs. Critical
social services like food stamps, college assistance for low-income
families, Section 8 housing, home heating assistance, and Medicaid--all
would face drastic cuts. Under the Republican proposal, our
transportation investments would be cut by 20% over the next 10 years,
exacerbating the challenges posed by our outdated roads, bridges, and
airports. The bill also completely eliminates support for PBS, NPR,
AmeriCorps, and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.
The Republican budget makes all of these cuts while refusing to cut a
dime of military spending. What's worse, the Republican plan actually
reverses planned reductions to military spending by increasing cuts to
vital social programs--a callously unfair proposal that will have
terrible consequences for millions of American families.
To add insult to injury, the bill before us today would make
sweeping, regressive changes to the tax code which would raise taxes on
middle class families by up to $3,000. Millionaires, however, would
actually see a tax cut that averages $245,000 a year. This is just
wrong. Working families should never have to pay more just so the rich
can pay less, which is just one more reason why we must defeat this
bill.
We no longer, if we ever did, have a deficit crisis. What we have is
a jobs crisis, with 12 million people searching for employment, and
almost 5 million Americans without a job for more than 6 months.
In contrast with the Republican spending plan, the Back to Work
Budget addresses the jobs crisis head-on by creating nearly 7 million
jobs in the first year by making historic investments in our
infrastructure, schools, and transit. It would enable States and local
governments to hire laid-off teachers, cops, and firefighters, putting
them back to work in strengthening our communities.
The Back to Work Budget would preserve our commitment to seniors by
making no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, while
reducing health care costs by negotiating drug prices, increasing
competition in the health care marketplace, and reducing fraud.
Our budget would also adopt a common-sense tax system that asks the
wealthiest to pay their fair share while lowering the tax burden on
middle class families. We would also extend the Making Work Pay tax
credit to help low-wage workers get back to work and providing for
their families.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of all of
these policies would decrease GDP by 1.7%, resulting in 2 million jobs
lost in 2014 alone. If budgets are truly a reflection of our values,
then what does it say about the priorities of House Republicans when
their budget increases health care costs for seniors, cuts 2 million
jobs, and hits middle class families with a tax increase in order to
subsidize another tax cut for the rich?
The American people rejected this extremist ideology last fall, and I
hope that my colleagues follow their lead and reject this bill today.
But the larger problem with the Republican budget is that it will
increase unemployment and savage Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs
that families depend upon, in order to fix a deficit ``crisis'' which
we have already tamed. In 2009 the deficit was 10.1% of GDP. By next
year, it will be down to 5.3%. This is the largest and fastest
reduction in deficits since the demobilization after World War II.
Basic economics tells us that government should pay off debt during
good times while protecting jobs and middle class security during bad
times. By balancing revenues with investments and creating millions of
new jobs, the Back to Work Budget would produce significant economic
growth while reducing the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years.
But callous, unbalanced cuts to domestic programs, particularly of
the magnitude that House Republicans are proposing, would spell
disaster for our economic recovery.
While GOP leaders claim to be making tough choices when it comes to
our spending priorities, again and again they seem to only be making
the wrong choices. They choose tax breaks for millionaires and the
largest corporations over tax fairness for the middle class. They
choose to reduce access to health care by voucherizing Medicare instead
of protecting the benefits that seniors have earned through a lifetime
of hard work. They choose to avoid required reductions in military
spending by instead cutting programs that feed hungry children, heat
family homes, and make college affordable.
Conservative governments in Europe have instituted the same austerity
policies offered by the Republican budget. The result is a double-dip
recession and 12% unemployment. We should learn from their stupidity.
Mr. GARRETT. And just to take a word from the gentlelady from
California, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Williams), who has actually walked the walk and created jobs to create
more American prosperity.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, we owe it to the American people to
produce a smart, responsible budget; a budget that balances, that
encourages job growth, and supports job creators; a budget that
simplifies our overly complicated Tax Code and lowers tax rates for
corporations and the middle class.

[[Page H1679]]

This budget just doesn't add up. In fact, it further complicates the
Tax Code and will greatly hamper job creation. It would create five new
tax brackets for upper-income individuals and small businesses, and
would raise taxes on hardworking middle class Americans. It's not good
policy to raise taxes ever, and especially not in a struggling economy.
I know what it takes to run a successful business. I have owned and
operated my small business for 41 years, and it was said I walked the
walk, I talked the talk.
This budget won't work in the real world, and it won't work in any
world. This budget contains trillions in new taxes, trillions in new
spending, and adds trillions more to the deficit. Pretty soon this
budget would need its own bailout.
The American people deserve better. They beg for the Ryan budget. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this substitute.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison), the cochair of the Progressive Caucus.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate my Republican
friends on convincing some Americans that the only thing they should be
thinking about is debt and deficit. While it is important, we
acknowledge that, even Speaker Boehner last weekend said that it was
not an immediate crisis. But the immediate crisis is the jobs crisis,
so we should be comparing these budgets based on who creates more jobs.
Now, the Progressive Caucus Back to Work budget creates 7 million
jobs in its first year with a jobs package that repairs 35,000 public
schools, rehires 300,000 laid-off teachers, and boosts consumer demand
with a tax credit for working families. I believe my friend who just
spoke said that we raise taxes on middle class families. Not true. We
actually cut taxes on middle class families.
The Republican budget would kill 2 million jobs in its first year by
slashing investment in research, education, and public safety.
Now by a job-to-job comparison, not just a debt-to-debt, deficit-to-
deficit comparison--again, an important thing, but not the most
important thing--on the jobs measure, the Back to Work budget is
superior in every way to the Republican budget. It puts people back to
work doing jobs that need doing.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, experts who are completely
nonpartisan, have said we have $3.3 trillion in unmet maintenance
needs. We make a downpayment on that infrastructure gap, and we put
Americans back to work with the Back to Work budget.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has the right to close.
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Back to Work budget is a budget that is common sense, and it
reflects the values of the American people. It is a budget that deals
with the realities of our economic times and our social times in this
country.
This budget is about investment. It's about saying that the greatest
resource we have in this country is the American people. We need to put
them to work. We need to educate them for the future, and we need to
provide them with some economic security for the middle class, working
people, so they, too, can enjoy the economic benefits of this great
Nation of ours.
We also do not step on those who are the most vulnerable. We provide
them with the security, with Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid,
so that they, too, can continue to utilize the full benefits of those
earned benefits that they have.
This fiscal debate today with the Ryan budget, too, and the other
good budgets that have been proposed today is really an argument and a
debate about the values and the future of this Nation. The Back to Work
budget accepts the reality that we're in. It does not try to repeat a
failed policy of the past, and takes us in a direction that in 10
years--and in 10 years, this country will be more solvent, more secure,
and unemployment will be down and the investment in this time will pay
off tremendous dividends for the future. Our budget is about the
future. It is not about being mired in the past, as the Ryan budget is.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, so here we are at the end of the debate,
and where are we?
The Progressive substitute, what would it do? It would raise taxes on
the American family. It would increase spending throughout the country.
It would put programs such as Medicare, to allow them to go bankrupt,
if you will, within the decade, in 2023. It would do all this and put
the burden on our children and never, ever balance.
In contrast, before us is the House Republican's Path to Prosperity.
What does it do? It takes the first step. It takes the very first step
toward reversing this trend, this path to debt and decline that the
President and his fellow Democrats on that side of the aisle, and the
Senate Democrats as well, have laid out for the American people. See,
the Republican budget stops spending money that we do not have. The
Republican budget simply does the right things in this area.
The Republican budget fixes our broken Tax Code. It does away with
all of those unfair corporate deductions and the like that we've talked
about. There is some commonality there. So it fixes our broken Tax
Code, and it does so in a way at the end of the day creates jobs,
increases wages, and helps the American family. The Republican budget
will protect and strengthen important priorities like Medicare and
national security, not allowed by the other side of the aisle. The
Republican budget will also reform our welfare programs, such as
Medicaid, so they can actually deliver on their promise and not go
bankrupt.
Every American family, every family in this country understands the
necessity of having a balanced budget. The President and the Democrats
could surely learn by talking to them across the country. Budgets are
more than numbers. Budgets basically come here to Congress and set
priorities, if you will; and beyond that, they have real impact on
human beings.
Unlike the Progressive substitute that's before us right now, the
Path to Prosperity will provide real economic security for workers, for
parents. It will ensure security retirement for the elderly and our
seniors. It will expand opportunity for the young. For that reason, I
urge this Chamber to vote on the side of freedom and opportunity and
reject the Progressive Caucus budget substitute.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Grijalva
substitute amendment.
The amendment before us right now does nothing to get our nation
back on a sustainable spending path. Instead, it proposes devastating
cuts to the Department of Defense that would threaten our national
security. It does nothing to protect the solvency of the Medicare trust
fund. And this budget further complicates the tax code by creating five
additional income tax brackets.
Americans are in this economic crisis together. We must work
together to overcome these challenges that are having devastating
effects on our economy, the jobs market, and could seriously hinder the
standard of living for the younger generations.
The House budget, the Republican Path to Prosperity, builds upon the
bipartisan Fiscal Commission which my bill, the 'Bowles-Simpson Plan of
Lowering America's Debt Act,' also does. To be effective, Congress must
eliminate waste and restore fiscal discipline to the government. The
Simpson-Bowles Commission has given us a framework to implement
targeted cuts so we don't have to subject the American people to
arbitrary across-the-board-cuts again. The budget before us today is
the way to go.
At a time when our country is more than $16 trillion in debt--all of
which is saddled on our children and grandchildren--Congress must act
to end the years upon years of rampant, runaway federal spending that
has occurred under both political parties.
It's Congress' job to pass a budget that is balanced and carefully
spends Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. I urge my colleagues to
reject the Grijalva amendment and instead implement the House
Republican budget, the responsible, balanced budget which builds on the
Simpson-Bowles Commission's suggestions, and will foster a healthier
economy and help create jobs across America.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

[[Page H1680]]

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-21 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment no. 1 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
Amendment no. 2 by Mr. Scott of Virginia.
Amendment no. 3 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154,
noes 261, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 83]

AYES--154

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--261

Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--16

Aderholt
Amodei
DeLauro
Engel
Eshoo
Fortenberry
Grimm
Hinojosa
Langevin
Lipinski
Meng
Miller, George
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (NJ)
Thompson (CA)
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1446

Messrs. WEBER of Texas, SCHWEIKERT, BARBER, DUNCAN of South Carolina,
GOSAR, ROONEY and BARTON, and Mrs. KIRKPATRICK changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, NEAL and
TONKO, and Mrs. McCARTHY of New York changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Scott of
Virginia

The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105,
noes 305, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 84]

AYES--105

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Deutch
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Fudge
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lowenthal
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen

[[Page H1681]]

Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--305

Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Negrete McLeod

NOT VOTING--20

Aderholt
Amodei
DeLauro
Engel
Eshoo
Fortenberry
Grimm
Hinojosa
Hurt
Langevin
Lipinski
Meng
Miller, George
Pelosi
Sanchez, Loretta
Sewell (AL)
Smith (NJ)
Thompson (CA)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman

{time} 1456

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I was detained and missed this vote
for the Record. I support this amendment and would have voted for it.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 84, the Scott of VA Substitute
amendment to H. Con. Res. 25, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. HURT. Mr. Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 84. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 3 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Grijalva

The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84,
noes 327, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 85]

AYES--84

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Farr
Fattah
Fudge
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lowenthal
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Takano
Tierney
Tonko
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Yarmuth

NOES--327

Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holding
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock

[[Page H1682]]

Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Negrete McLeod

NOT VOTING--19

Aderholt
Amodei
DeLauro
Engel
Eshoo
Fortenberry
Grimm
Hinojosa
Langevin
Lipinski
Meng
Miller, George
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, Austin
Smith (NJ)
Thompson (CA)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Wilson (FL)

{time} 1503

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Woodall

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 113-21.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014.

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 302. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 303. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate
budgetary levels.
Sec. 304. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 305. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 306. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 307. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 308. Transfers from the general fund of the treasury to the
highway trust fund that increase public indebtedness.
Sec. 309. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/
global war on terrorism.
Sec. 310. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE IV--POLICY

Sec. 401. Policy statement on Health Care Law repeal.
Sec. 402. Policy statement on means-tested welfare programs.
Sec. 403. Policy statement on reforming Federal regulation.
Sec. 404. Policy statement on medicare.
Sec. 405. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the
cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 406. Policy statement on block granting Medicaid.
Sec. 407. Policy statement on a carbon tax.
Sec. 408. Policy statement on the use of official time by Federal
employees for union activities.
Sec. 409. Policy statement on creation of a Committee to Eliminate
Duplication and Waste.
Sec. 410. Policy statement on Federal funding of abortion.
Sec. 411. Policy statement on readable legislation.
Sec. 412. Policy statement on work requirements.
Sec. 413. Policy statement on energy production.
Sec. 414. Policy statement on regulation of greenhouse gases by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Sec. 415. Policy statement on creating a Commission to Eliminate Waste
and Duplication.
Sec. 416. Policy statement on reforming the Federal budget process.

TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 501. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 502. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reform of the 2010
health care laws.
Sec. 503. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare
provisions of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 504. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate
of the Medicare program.
Sec. 505. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 506. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 507. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 508. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 509. Implementation of a deficit and long-term debt reduction
agreement.

TITLE VI--EARMARK MORATORIUM

Sec. 601. Earmark moratorium.
Sec. 602. Limitation of authority of the House Committee on Rules.

TITLE VII--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 701. Direct spending.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2014 through 2023:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this concurrent resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $2,238,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2.569,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,736,260,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,855,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,977,343,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,094,769,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,226,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,394,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,583,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,758,528,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: -$42,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$48,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$55,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$62,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$66,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$71,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$76,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$82,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$88,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: -$95,000,000,000.
(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 2014: $2,731,789,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,637,514,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,784,886,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,879,849,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,949,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,107,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,214,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,321,892,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,444,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,514,166,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total
budget outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $2,776,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,691,748,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,778,027,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,851,148,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,924,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,060,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,175,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,279,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,430,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,470,191,000,000.
(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 2014: -$538,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$122,237,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$41,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $4,537,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $52,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $34,640,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $50,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $114,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $153,216,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $288,337,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the
public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $17,770,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,078,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $18,314,047,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $18,575,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $18,835,381,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $19,150,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $19,468,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $19,747,439,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $19,992,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $20,141,240,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $12,843,588,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,061,768,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $13,195,792,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $13,302,662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $13,381,815,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $13,531,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $13,696,092,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021; $13,839,370,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $13,984,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $14,032,720,000,000.

[[Page H1683]]

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2014 through 2023 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $560,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $579,234,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $574,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $563,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $585,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $598,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $575,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $612,125,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $582,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $625,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $600,508,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $639,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $614,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $654,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $628,265,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $671,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $649,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $688,640,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $660,461,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

[[Page H1684]]

Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:

[[Page H1685]]

(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.

[[Page H1686]]

(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $352,461,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $352,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $369,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $406,832,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $406,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $472,136,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $472,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $540,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $540,485,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $590,567,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $590,567,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $632,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $632,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $657,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $657,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $678,208,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $678,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $688,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $688,759,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $1,819,103,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,845,094,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $1,694,050,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,758,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $1,792,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,800,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $1,808,890,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,803,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $1,796,408,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,801,238,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $1,891,517,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,869,054,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $1,942,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,928,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $2,010,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,993,333,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $2,094,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,102,747,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $2,136,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,120,971,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
(21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism (970):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, an amount to be derived from
function 920.
(B) Outlays, an amount to be derived from function 920.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--The House
committees named in subsection (b) shall submit, not later
than May 31, 2013, recommendations to the Committee on the
Budget of the House of Representatives. After receiving those
recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without substantive revision.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture
shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000
for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(2) Committee on education and the workforce.--The
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall submit changes
in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2013 through 2023.
(3) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on
Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.

[[Page H1687]]

(4) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on
Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(5) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(6) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(7) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall submit
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(8) Committee on ways and means.--(A) The Committee on Ways
and Means shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 through
2023.
(B) The Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives shall report a reconciliation bill not later
than September 15, 2013, that consists of changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues by not
more than $42,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and by not
more than $685,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2014 through 2023.

TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 301. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 302. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 303. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS, AND
APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS.

SEC. 304. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

SEC. 305. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

SEC. 306. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

[[Page H1688]]

(2) Section 314(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
shall not apply in the House of Representatives to any bill,
joint resolution, or amendment that provides new budget
authority for a fiscal year or to any conference report on
any such bill or resolution, if--
(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution;
(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form
recommended in that conference report;
would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget
authority made pursuant to section 302(a) of such Act for
that fiscal year to be exceeded or the sum of the limits on
the security and non-security category in section 251A of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act as reduced
pursuant to such section.

SEC. 307. 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 housing 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, cash-basis accounting
solely uses the discount rates of the Treasury, failing to
incorporate risks such as prepayment and default risk.
(3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the $635
billion of loans and loan guarantees issued in 2013 alone
would generate budgetary savings of $45 billion over their
lifetime using FCRA accounting. However, these same loans and
loan guarantees would have a lifetime cost of $11 billion
under fair-value methodology.
(4) The majority of loans and guarantees issued in 2013
would show deficit reduction of $9.1 billion under FCRA
methodology, but would increase the deficit by $4.7 billion
using fair-value accounting.
(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. 308. TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY TO
THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC
INDEBTEDNESS.

SEC. 309. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

SEC. 310. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

TITLE IV--POLICY

SEC. 401. POLICY STATEMENT ON HEALTH CARE LAW REPEAL.

It is the policy of this resolution that the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), and
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-152) should be repealed.

SEC. 402. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEANS-TESTED WELFARE PROGRAMS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that:
(1) In 1996, President Bill Clinton and congressional
Republicans enacted reforms that have moved families off of
Federal programs and enabled them to provide for themselves.
(2) According to the most recent projections, over the next
10 years we will spend approximately $10 trillion on means-
tested welfare programs.
(3) Today, there are approximately 70 Federal programs that
provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income
Americans.
(4) Taxpayers deserve clear and transparent information on
how well these programs are working, and how much the Federal
Government is spending on means-tested welfare.
(b) Policy on Means-Tested Welfare Programs.--It is the
policy of this resolution that the President's budget should
disclose, in a clear and transparent manner, the aggregate
amount of Federal welfare expenditures, as well as an
estimate of State and local spending for this purpose, over
the next ten years.

SEC. 403. POLICY STATEMENT ON REFORMING FEDERAL REGULATION.

It is the policy of this resolution that the cost of
regulations on job creators should be reduced by enacting
title II of the Jobs Through Growth Act (H.R. 3400), as
introduced on November 10, 2011. Further, it is the policy of
this resolution that H.R. 309, the Regulatory Sunset and
Review Act of 2013 as introduced on January 18, 2013, should
also be enacted.

SEC. 404. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) More than 51 million Americans depend on Medicare for
their health security.
(2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly recommended
that Medicare's long-term financial challenges be addressed
soon. Each year without reform, the financial condition of
Medicare becomes more precarious and the threat to those in
and near retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the
Congressional Budget Office--
(A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in
2023 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 6.4
percent per year on average over the next ten years, and
under the Congressional Budget Office's alternative fiscal
scenario, direct spending on Medicare is projected to reach
6.4 percent of GDP by 2035 and 13 percent of GDP by 2085.
(3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of
American seniors without adequate health security and younger
generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending
levels that cannot be sustained.
(b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this
resolution--
(1) to protect those in and near retirement from any
disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future
beneficiaries the same health care options available to
Members of Congress; and
(2) that H.R. 309, the Regulatory Sunset and Review Act of
2013 as introduced on January 18, 2013, should be enacted
(c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the
Medicare program such that:
(1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in
and near retirement, without changes.
(2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility,
Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and
a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which
recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs,
including an option to remain in the traditional Medicare
fee-for-service program.
(3) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower-
income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks.
(4) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the
Medicare program becomes solvent over the long term.

SEC. 405. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:

[[Page H1689]]

(1) According to the Office of Management and Budget,
Federal agencies will hold $698 billion in unobligated
balances at the close of fiscal year 2013.
(2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending
made available by Congress that remain available for
expenditure beyond the fiscal year for which they are
provided.
(3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and it
remains available for obligation indefinitely.
(4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974 requires the Office of Management and Budget to make
funds available to agencies for obligation and prohibits the
Administration from withholding or cancelling unobligated
funds unless approved by an act of Congress.
(5) Greater congressional oversight is required to review
and identify potential savings from unneeded balances of
funds.
(b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of
Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees shall through
their oversight activities identify and achieve savings
through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated
balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the
Federal Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments
under programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs,
national security, and Treasury authority to finance the
national debt.
(c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of
the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General,
and other appropriate agencies should make it a high priority
to review unobligated balances and identify savings for
deficit reduction.

SEC. 406. POLICY STATEMENT ON BLOCK GRANTING MEDICAID.

It is the policy of this resolution that Medicaid and the
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) should be block
granted to the States in a manner prescribed by the State
Health Flexibility Act of 2013 (H.R. 567, 113th Congress).

SEC. 407. POLICY STATEMENT ON A CARBON TAX.

It is the policy of this budget that a carbon tax would be
detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not
in the best interest of the United States.

SEC. 408. POLICY STATEMENT ON THE USE OF OFFICIAL TIME BY
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR UNION ACTIVITIES.

It is the policy of this budget that, as called for in the
Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2013, Federal
employees shall not use official time to conduct union
activities.

SEC. 409. POLICY STATEMENT ON CREATION OF A COMMITTEE TO
ELIMINATE DUPLICATION AND WASTE.

It is the policy of this budget that a new committee,
styled after the post-World War II ``Byrd Committee'' shall
be created to act on GAO's annual waste and duplication
reports as well as Oversight and Government Reform Inspector
General reports.

SEC. 410. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION.

It is the policy of this budget that no taxpayer dollars
shall go to any entity that provides abortion services.

SEC. 411. POLICY STATEMENT ON READABLE LEGISLATION.

It is the policy of this budget that bills should be made
more readable and for Members of Congress and more accessible
to the public as called for in the Readable Legislation Act
of 2013.

SEC. 412. POLICY STATEMENT ON WORK REQUIREMENTS.

It is the policy of this budget that the work requirements
in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant
program should be preserved as called for in H.R. 890, 113th
Congress.

SEC. 413. POLICY STATEMENT ON ENERGY PRODUCTION.

It is the policy of this resolution that the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and currently unavailable
areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) should be open for
energy exploration and production. To ensure States' rights,
states are given the option to withdrawal from leasing within
certain areas of the OCS. Specifically, a State, through
enactment of a State statute, may withdrawal from leasing
from all or part of any area within 75 miles of that State's
coast.

SEC. 414. POLICY STATEMENT ON REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES
BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

The Environmental Protection Agency is prohibited from
promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action
relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a
greenhouse gas to address climate change.

SEC. 415. POLICY STATEMENT ON CREATING A COMMISSION TO
ELIMINATE WASTE AND DUPLICATION.

It is the policy of this budget that a new commission
styled after the ``Byrd Committee'' shall be established as
called for in H. Res. 119., as introduced on March 14, 2013.

SEC. 416. POLICY STATEMENT ON REFORMING THE FEDERAL BUDGET
PROCESS.

It is the policy of this resolution that the Federal budget
process should be reformed so that it is easier to reduce
Federal spending than it is to increase it by enacting
reforms included in the Spending, Deficit, and Debt Control
Act of 2009 (H.R. 3964, 111th Congress).

TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 501. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE
LAWS.

SEC. 502. 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
2014 through 2023.

SEC. 503. 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 2014
through 2023.

SEC. 504. 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 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 505. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE TAX
CODE.

SEC. 506. 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 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 507. 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 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 508. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND
SCHOOLS.

SEC. 509. IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEFICIT AND LONG-TERM DEBT
REDUCTION AGREEMENT.

[[Page H1690]]

TITLE VI--EARMARK MORATORIUM

SEC. 601. EARMARK MORATORIUM.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order to consider--
(1) a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee,
or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that
includes a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or
limited tariff benefit; or
(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by any
committee, or any amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that includes a congressional earmark, limited tax
benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this resolution, the
terms ``congressional earmark'', ``limited tax benefit'', and
``limited tariff benefit'' have the meaning given those terms
in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
(c) Special Rule.--The point of order under subsection (a)
shall only apply to legislation providing or authorizing
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority, providing a Federal tax deduction,
credit, or exclusion, or modifying the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule in fiscal year 2012 or fiscal year 2013.
(d) Inapplicability.--This resolution shall not apply to
any authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if
such authorization is not specifically targeted to a State,
locality, or congressional district.

SEC. 602. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
RULES.

The House Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order
that would waive the point of order set forth in the first
section of this resolution.

TITLE VII--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 701. DIRECT SPENDING.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I bring a budget today, a substitute, on behalf of the Republican
Study Committee, a budget that balances the Federal budget in just 4
years. It does that, Mr. Chairman, by setting priorities for this
Nation, priorities that our constituents back home know need to be set.
I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by showing you the priorities as they
relate to revenue and spending. Within 4 years, we bring revenue above
the level of spending so that we can begin to repay our debt and
eliminate our deficits for the first time since the Clinton
administration, which will bring deficits and revenues in line, Mr.
Chairman.
What we do is we prioritize those programs that are important to so
many Americans. As you see from this chart, Mr. Chairman, Social
Security spending is up each and every year in our budget while
extending the life of the Social Security trust fund; Medicare spending
is up each and every year in our budget while extending the life of the
Medicare trust fund.
Mr. Chairman, if a budget is nothing else, it is a statement of our
values and our priorities. And the Republican Study Committee's value
and priority is to end the passing of responsibilities from this
generation to the next, to be responsible for the bills that we create
today and pay for those priorities today.
In 4 short years, Mr. Chairman, we can be out of this conversation
about debt and deficit and begin the conversation about freeing the
next generation from the $16.7 trillion that you and I and previous
Congresses have racked up on their behalf.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion yesterday and today
about different approaches to the budget, and we've had a discussion
about the Budget Committee budget, the Ryan budget, that was on the
floor and will be voted on later.
That budget, of course, is an uncompromising budget. If you look at
this budget, it's even worse. And on top of that, this budget has even
more gimmicks than the earlier budget that we talked about.

{time} 1510

So what are those gimmicks? Well, first of all, this budget says it
comes into balance in 4 years. Look, if you want a race to a fake
balance, obviously you should vote for this one over the Republican
caucus budget. But the reality is, it gets to that balance by keeping
the savings from ObamaCare, which our Republican colleagues say they
want to eliminate, that they want to repeal.
You don't have to take my word for it. The Heritage Foundation did a
quick action alert on this budget. Here is what they say: ``Another
failing of this RSC budget is that, like the committee budget''--in
other words like the principal Republican budget--``it keeps revenues
near the levels reached with ObamaCare tax hikes even though it repeals
the health care bill's spending provisions.''
So let's just be really clear what that means for the American
people. They are repealing the spending provisions. That means they are
getting rid of all the benefits in the Affordable Care Act, including
the provision to make sure that your child can stay on your insurance
policy until they are age 26 so a family is not bankrupted by an
accident or some disease that their child gets. It means the provisions
that make sure people can't get denied coverage because of preexisting
conditions, that is gone. So they get rid of all that, but they keep
the ObamaCare taxes. That is what the Heritage Foundation says.

[[Page H1691]]

Guess what? They also keep the savings from the Affordable Care Act
in the Medicare area that we achieve by ending the overpayments to some
of the insurance companies and other changes in the incentive
structure. We did it without hitting beneficiaries. They have railed
against that in the past, but it is right here in their budget.
And here is the catch: they say their budget gets a surplus in just 4
years. Well, the surplus is $22 billion, they claim. But here is how
much of it comes from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare. They
have got a little under $100 billion in revenue that year coming in,
and then they have got Medicare savings. So not close to balance in 4
years without those provisions, which, as the Heritage Foundation
points out, are in there.
And do you know what? Even at the 10-year window, even at the end of
the 10-year window, they claim to have a $246 billion surplus, and yet
they wouldn't get there without the savings from the Affordable Care
Act, from ObamaCare.
That's a hoax. To come to the floor and say you will have a balanced
budget in 4 years or 10 years, but guess what, you are going to repeal
ObamaCare, your budget doesn't work when you do that. That just doesn't
add up.
Now, they have another big sort of gimmick in this one that is not in
the other Republican budget that has to do with taxes. So the problem
with the main Republican budget is that it will provide tax breaks to
very wealthy people and help finance those tax breaks by bringing down
those rates by raising the tax burden on middle-income people.
As we discussed earlier, we actually put that question to the test in
the Budget Committee. We offered an amendment that says: Well, when you
do tax reform, don't make it a Trojan horse for raising middle class
taxes to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Protect the American
middle class from tax increases. A simple amendment. Every Republican
on the committee voted ``no.'' So that is their problem with the main
Republican budget.
This one has another problem. It creates two tax systems and says:
Taxpayer, you get to choose. And then it assumes that they are going to
choose the one that is worst for them. Because if they choose the one
that is better for the taxpayer, from the taxpayer's perspective they
don't have enough revenue in their budget to come to balance.
Now, look, the American people are smart. If you give them two
choices, obviously people are going to add them up, and they are going
to pick the tax return where they pay less. And if the American people
are as smart as I think they are, they will blow another hole in this
RSC budget.
So I am not even beginning to talk about the fact that they, once
again, more than double the sequester cuts to places like NIH and
places where we do scientific research, that they slash our investment
in infrastructure. They do all that. They do even more of that than the
other Republican budget, but it has the same fundamental gimmick with
respect to ObamaCare. And then on top of that, it has this other tax
gimmick in it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, while I regret the Rules Committee didn't
give us more time to correct that misinformation, they did give us
wonderful speakers. I would like to yield 4 minutes now to a former
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a former chairman of the
Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank him for
his leadership on this critical issue.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard from so many of our colleagues that
budgets are about priorities, and I believe this to be true. So what
does it say about Democrats' priorities when the President is almost 2
months late in submitting his budget, and Senate Democrats have taken
over 4 years to even bother to write a budget?
I suppose it says, Mr. Chairman, that budgets have a way of getting
in the way of Democrats as they wish to tax us more, as they wish to
borrow more money from China, money our kids have to pay back, and
budgets get in the way of Democrats wanting to spend more of our money
on a Washington insider economy that doesn't work for the rest of us.
We know that ObamaCare just raised $1 trillion of taxes, much of it
falling on working families. The so-called ``fiscal cliff'' raised
taxes almost another $700 billion, much of it falling on small business
owners who can no longer offer raises, promotions, or even hire new
workers. And now all these Democrat budgets are looking for an
additional trillion dollars of tax increase on top of that. That comes
out to about $9,000 for every working household in America.
Mr. Chairman, that is not fair, that is not helpful to this
struggling economy. No nation in the history of the world has ever
taxed its way into prosperity. America will not be the first.
Mr. Chairman, no nation has ever spent its way into prosperity; yet
the Democrat budgets continue a spending spree that is driving us
towards national bankruptcy. A day of reckoning is coming. You cannot
have Federal programs going at 2 percent, 4 percent, 6 percent, 8
percent when the new reality under this President is 1\1/2\ to 2
percent economic growth, and the family budget, which ultimately pays
for the Federal budget, is stagnant.
The families that I represent in the Fifth Congressional District of
Texas have several concerns. They want to feel more secure in their
jobs. They want to quit seeing their paychecks shrink in the face of
higher prices. They want a healthier economy where their success is
dependent upon how well they work, not on who they know in Washington.
In other words, they don't want a Washington insider economy where they
can only succeed if Democrats choose to invest in them.
Mr. Chairman, not every American belongs to a government employee
labor union that supported the President in the last election. Not
every American has a failing bankrupt solar energy company. So for the
rest of them, these hardworking Americans, they want an opportunity,
and they want a Main Street economy that, if they work hard and they
play by the rules, every American can succeed.
And, finally, the people I represent believe it is just immoral,
immoral to saddle our children with this trillion dollars of debt. That
is why I am proud to support both the Republican Study Committee budget
and the House Republican budget. They will help bring us a vibrant,
competitive economy through pro-growth tax reform, a whole new Tax Code
which is fairer, flatter, simpler, and more competitive, a budget that
is guaranteed to grow jobs and paychecks. And contrary to the Democrat
budget, no tax increases on anybody.

{time} 1520

We quit spending money we don't have, and I know my Democratic
colleague is very sensitive about the balance issue because they have a
budget which never balances. The American people demand one; the
Republican Study Committee and the House Republican budget deliver it.
For a fairer economy, for a balanced budget, for a greater future for
our children, we need to support these Republican budgets.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, our budget focuses first and foremost
on jobs and getting the economy growing. It does balance in the same
time that the Republican budget last year balanced. And unlike the
Republican budget, the main one, we do not give tax breaks to the folks
at the very top financed by increasing taxes on middle class taxpayers.
I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardenas), a great new member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chairman, my friends across the aisle constantly
say we should act like families and small businesses who balance their
budgets. So let's look at families and businesses in this country.
The fact is that most American families don't have a balanced budget.
When you graduate college, you get a mortgage or you go into debt,
either way. Many families are suffering through unemployment or
underemployment or even foreclosure. When you lose your job or your
house, you don't just pack it in and say, Well, I don't have a job
anymore, so no more

[[Page H1692]]

food for me. No, you get your suit cleaned, get out there and
interview. You get your resume professionally printed. You invest in
training courses to make yourself more marketable. You spend money to
make money.
It's the same thing for businesses. Small businesses are not
profitable right away. Businesses take time to pay off a lot of start-
up costs like equipment, inventory, insurance, and training. Businesses
have to invest to make business work. Sometimes your business goes into
a slump. So you train your employees, you buy new inventory and invest
in your company so it will grow. You don't just stop investing.
Mr. Chairman, the logic that they use to create this fiction that
responsible businesses and families are always in balance is simply not
true. Just like folks who are out of work or need to clean their suit
and improve their skills, we need to build infrastructure and train our
workers. Just like businesses who need new inventory and new ways to
sell, we need to find new technologies to build here at home and invest
in the education of our future workforce.
The very examples that they use of families and small businesses are
simply examples that demand investment, not austerity. You dress for
the job you want, not for the job you have. Let's pass a budget that
invests in our country, in our future, starting today.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time it's my great pleasure to
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the
chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia for
yielding and for his leadership in bringing this budget to the floor. I
rise in strong support of the RSC budget that we have here today, and I
want to talk about a few of the great things that it does to get our
economy moving again and get our country back on track.
The first thing that it does, it balances in 4 years. That's right,
we really do think it's an important priority of this country that we
balance the Federal budget. I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-
old son, and I don't think that it's asking too much that we balance
the Federal budget before they graduate from high school. And so we do
that.

What else do we do with this budget? We get our economy moving again
through tax reform that's pro-growth oriented and actually lower
overall rates and close loopholes so that we can create jobs and be
competitive again and get the country moving on track again.
Another thing we do, we save Medicare from bankruptcy. On the current
path, according to President Obama's own Medicare actuaries, right now
Medicare is scheduled to go bankrupt in 11 years. We don't think it's
responsible to let that happen, so we actually put a plan in place to
save Medicare from bankruptcy and ensure it for future generations.
We also repeal the job-killing ObamaCare, and not just the policies
behind it, but all the taxes, many of which fall on middle class
families, by the way. And so that's going to help get our economy
moving again.
But let's contrast this vision, this document that's being criticized
by my friends on the other side, with the President's budget. What's
the President's budget? It doesn't exist. Today the President released
his Final Four picks. He released his brackets. He's not a day late on
that. Yet, under the law, the President is now 45 days late on
releasing his budget. So what kind of set of priorities does that show,
the fact that the President doesn't think that it's important enough to
meet the legal deadline to file his own budget, he's 45 days late, and
yet we know his Final Four picks?
So we have a plan to get the economy moving again. We're laying this
plan forward to get a balanced budget and to get our economy moving and
start putting some pro-growth policies in place so we can create jobs
in this country.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to a distinguished
new Member from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to explain my strong
opposition to the Republican budget and strong support of the Democrat
budget amendment because it offers a balanced approach that is fair to
seniors, the middle class, and invests in the right priorities.
I want to give an important example. My district is filled with
people from all walks of life--teachers, entrepreneurs, and nurses--
who've worked hard and spent their lives earning the Medicare
guarantee. They live with the comfort of knowing that if they get sick
or injured, the health care they've earned will be there for them. I
know this firsthand. My own mother beat cancer with the help of
Medicare. Fortunately, I didn't have to make the choice that many
Americans will face under the Republican budget: having to choose
between helping a parent pay for a cancer treatment or saving for our
own children's college tuition.
The Democratic budget, on the other hand, secures Medicare by
stopping overpayments to insurance companies and incentivizing
efficiency in our health care delivery.
Mr. Chairman, we were sent here to get things done, to solve problems
and not to create new ones, and that's why I will proudly vote for the
Democratic budget.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), one of the visionaries
of the Republican Study Committee.
(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of reasons that I rise in strong
support of the Republican Study Committee budget. It repeals ObamaCare.
It repeals the death tax. It repeals the alternative minimum tax. It
authorizes the Keystone pipeline. It authorizes drilling in ANWR up in
Alaska. But the real reason and the primary reason is that it balances,
and it balances sooner rather than later.
The first 4 years of the Obama Presidency, our deficits approached $7
trillion. The President has yet to submit a budget that ever balances.
None of the Democratic alternative budgets ever balance. The Republican
Study Committee balances in 4 years. It reduces the deficit
immediately, larger, and it balances.
If I were to come before this body and ask for an amendment to be
made in order to spend an additional trillion dollars a year to
infinity, I don't think too many people would vote for that no matter
what was in it. That's basically what you do if you vote to pass a
budget that never balances.
The Republican Study Committee balances sooner rather than later. It
balances in 4 years.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland for
his leadership on these very difficult issues.
Mr. Chairman, if you like sequestration that cuts $1.2 trillion in
discretionary domestic spending, you're going to love the Republican
budget which actually quintuples that. And then there's the RSC budget
that goes even further. So while the Ryan budget cuts almost $6
trillion over the next 10 years in investments, this budget, the RSC,
cuts $7.7 trillion. Yes, it cuts funding, as the last speaker just
said, but at what expense? At what cost? We are, with this budget and
with the underlying Ryan budget, we are disinvesting in America. We are
walking away from research and development investments. We're walking
away from infrastructure investments.

{time} 1530

We are walking away from STEM and education investments. Those are
the three legs of a stool that makes a great country great.
George Washington understood that and was a big champion of
infrastructure investment and education.
Abraham Lincoln understood that in the midst of the Civil War when he
invested, and this Congress invested, in the Transcontinental Railroad,
in the Land Grant Research College System, in the Homestead Act, yes,
and even completing the dome of this building, because they understood
it was important to invest in the future of this country.
These two budgets walk away from that future. In fact, they almost
guarantee a bleak future for America with

[[Page H1693]]

respect to the competition. The Chinese aren't making these kinds of
mistakes, we should not either.
I urge defeat of both the RSC budget, Mr. Chairman, and the Ryan
budget when it comes up.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time it's my great pleasure to
yield 1 minute to a colleague of mine from the great State of Georgia,
Dr. Broun.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed by the sheer ignorance
of the economic disaster that our country is facing. Not only are our
leaders ignoring this crisis, they're denying there is even a problem.
This week we'll vote on six budget options, and five of them actually
increase spending above today's level. Simply reducing the growth of
spending will do nothing to address the economic emergency that we
face. The idea that we're increasing spending, but not as much as the
other guy, is severely misguided.
We have to dig deeper and make real, targeted cuts, and there has to
be a sense of urgency about it. Only the RSC budget actually cuts our
baseline spending level and will lead to a balanced budget faster than
the alternatives.
We must live within our means.
I thank my friend, Congressman Woodall, for recognizing that we need
to cut the outrageous spending and offering this budget today.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on each
side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Georgia has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Maryland has the right to close.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my very good friend from Maryland, the ranking
member of our Budget Committee. I thank him for his leadership, and for
his common sense, and for advancing approaches that make the right
investments in the right priorities in this country, investments that
expand the middle class, investments that provide for a balanced
approach and reduce our debt.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the RSC budget. As House Democrats, we
believe that we need solutions-based budgets, not ideology-based
budgets. We need solutions-based budgets that rest on three pillars:
Number 1, they take a balanced approach and reduce debt, because we
need to reduce debt, but do it in a balanced way.
Number 2, they protect the middle class, because the middle class is
still struggling. Make sure the middle class is protected.
And Number 3, they make the right and smart investments in the right
and smart priorities, that don't ask us to forsake research and cures
and treatments for disease, that don't allow China to move ahead of us
in research and development, engineering, science and technology, that
keep us competitive in the world.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. ISRAEL. So we want these solutions-based budgets that achieve
these three critical priorities, and the way we get to those three
critical priorities is through one thing, and that is compromise. It is
the ability of both sides of the aisle to pursue these three priorities
in a balanced way.
The budget before us right now is not about compromise, it is about
ideology. It is not about common sense and solutions, it is about
extremism.
The American people have sent us here to get things done, to find
solutions to move them forward.
Let's not go backwards, Mr. Chairman. Let's not continue gridlock,
Mr. Chairman. Let's find a balanced approach that rests on compromise
and supports the middle class. And that is why I rise today in
opposition to the budget before us.
I thank my distinguished friend from Maryland.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a gentleman who
came into the House with me in 2010.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to visit
with you today. And it's very interesting as we sit here and discuss
the balanced approach.
How do you have a balanced approach, Mr. Chairman, if you can't have
a balanced budget?
There are two different visions here. You either trust the people in
Washington who have given us $16.7 trillion of debt, or you trust the
American people.
What the RSC budget does is trust the American people with their
money by taking back the big tax increase that was given to us in
January, by taking away the big ObamaCare controls that were given to
us in 2010, and actually returns that power to the States and to the
people, and actually balances the budget in 4 years.
This is real progress. This is a returning to what the American
people demand. And what we need to create growth and prosperity in
America is to pass these types of budgets.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I'd inquire of my friend if he has any
remaining speakers.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No, we do not.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, you and all Members can find every word of this budget
on the Internet at rsc.scalise.house.gov. This isn't just about trying
to go through the math. This is about laying out priorities. That's
what every budget is.
This budget provides flexibility to States to care for our poor and
our underserved in our health care communities. This budget provides
the flexibility to seniors to find doctors, doctors that are no longer
taking Medicare today and are threatening the health care quality that
folks like my mom and dad are having to contend with.
This is a budget that makes tough decisions. You're not going to find
a family in this country, Mr. Chairman, that hasn't had to make tough
decisions during tough economic times. And the question is, why won't
the U.S. House of Representatives, why won't the U.S. Senate, why won't
the United States President do exactly the same thing?
We're trying to fulfill that request of the American people today,
Mr. Chairman, in this budget. Every word laid out right here talking
about, Mr. Chairman, responsible budgeting, prioritizing, as we did,
our seniors who are counting on Social Security, our seniors who are
counting on Medicare, our seniors who are counting on the solvency of
both of those programs.
We ensure that that does not continue, Mr. Chairman, because solvency
is not guaranteed. In fact, it's guaranteed not to be there under
current funding systems. We change those systems to ensure that it will
be a sustainable path, Mr. Chairman, a path where revenues and spending
align, radical idea for this Chamber. And you'll hear it described in
radical terms by my friends, where spending and revenues align. We
commit ourselves to that, and we achieve it.
They say that talk is cheap, Mr. Chairman. That's why we back up this
budget with real ideas, real proposals, real solutions. But when they
say talk is cheap, and as my colleague from Maryland begins to close, I
want to observe that talk, in this case, is not cheap at all.
The words that you'll hear from the gentleman from Maryland, in
opposition to our proposal, in support of his proposal, are the
difference between the $33 billion surplus that our budget generates
and the $5.11 trillion deficit that the gentleman's proposal creates.
These are not questions of math, Mr. Chairman. These are questions of
what kind of future do we want to leave to our children and our
grandchildren. I feel the burden of responsibility for the $16.7
trillion this Nation has already put on its credit card. We take
difficult steps in this budget to begin to reverse that for the first
time.
In the absence of this budget, Mr. Chairman, in the absence of
powerful ideas, like what you see in the House Budget Committee budget,
we relegate our children to a second-class future, a future in which
they owe $5.1 trillion more than the already immoral debt load that
they face today.

[[Page H1694]]

{time} 1540

There is a better way, Mr. Chairman. There are alternatives in this
town. We are presenting one right here. It's called the Back to Basics
budget, Mr. Chairman. It's a product of the Republican Study Committee.
To close, Mr. Chairman, these things don't happen by themselves.
While the President has been unable to produce a budget, we've produced
five in this house. It's because of the work of folks like Nick Myers
on my staff. It's because of the work of folks like Will Dunham on the
RSC staff. I know the gentleman from Maryland has the same kind of
hardworking team working with him. These things don't happen in a
vacuum. They happen because folks put in hour after hour after hour.
I'm grateful to them. I hope America will support the product of their
minds.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think the American people know full well that the
best way to attack the deficit right now is to help put more Americans
back to work. That's the sense in this country and that's what all the
numbers show from the Congressional Budget Office.
If you take the austerity approach recommended in either this budget
or the main Republican budget, we know from the referees, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that we'll see 750,000 fewer
jobs just by the end of this calendar year. We also know you'll see 2
million fewer jobs next year, which is why we say let's focus on the
jobs deficit and address the budget deficit in a sustained way where we
bring it down in a balanced way, where we ask for shared responsibility
and not another round of tax breaks for the folks at the very top.
And yes, we achieve balance in the same year the Republican budget
last year achieved balance, but our priority is getting the country
fully back to work.
We also believe that when we put together these budgets, we shouldn't
pretend that you can have it all ways. And as I have said repeatedly,
the Republican budget, including this RSC budget, is based, on the one
hand, on the claim that it gets to balance in 4 years--one, in 10
years--but at the same time that they're repealing ObamaCare, and that
just is not the case. It doesn't add up.
So if you're in a race to fake balance, then you should vote for this
one because it gets to fake balance in 4 years instead of 10 years. But
if you're in a race to put America back to work, you should vote for
the Democratic plan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the
substitute amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia, Mr. Woodall.
I commend him on authoring this substitute amendment on behalf of the
Republican Study Committee.
At a time when we have over $16.5 trillion in debt, this budget
reduces spending by $6.5 trillion over ten years and reduces deficits
by $5.9 trillion. Furthermore, the Woodall amendment completely repeals
ObamaCare, and it rolls back the tax increases associated with the
fiscal cliff. In doing so, this budget decreases taxes by $685 billion
over the budget window.
Mr. Chair, unlike any other of the substitutes offered today, the RSC
budget will achieve balance by 2017 without holding funding for our
servicemen and women hostage. This budget also significantly reforms
our entitlement programs so we can ensure their long term solvency for
future generations.
Mr. Chair, I believe that this is a sensible budget that puts the
proper priorities in line. I ask all of my colleagues to support it.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104,
noes 132, answered ``present'' 171, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 86]

AYES--104

Amash
Barton
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cassidy
Chabot
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cotton
Culberson
DeSantis
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Long
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Radel
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho

NOES--132

Alexander
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Calvert
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Collins (NY)
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Ellmers
Esty
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Joyce
Kelly
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maloney, Sean
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Petri
Pitts
Posey
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Schneider
Schrader
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--171

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Enyart
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--24

Aderholt
Amodei
Bachmann
Clarke
DeLauro
Engel
Eshoo
Fortenberry
Foxx
Grimm
Hinojosa
Langevin
Lipinski
Matheson
Meng
Miller, George
Perry
Peterson

[[Page H1695]]

Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta
Schock
Smith (NJ)
Thompson (CA)
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1606

Messrs. SALMON, MARCHANT and ROE of Tennessee changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Ms. SINEMA, Messrs. BARROW of
Georgia and SCHRADER changed their vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RYAN of Ohio and COOPER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``present.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 86, had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye.''
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chair, my vote on rollcall 86 did not reflect the way
I intended to vote. I wished to vote ``aye.''

personal explanation

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I was not present during the rollcall votes
Nos. 76-86, on March 18-20, 2013. I would like the record to reflect
how I would have voted: On rollcall vote No. 76 I would have voted
``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 77 I would have voted ``yes.'' On
rollcall vote No. 78 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No.
79 I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 80 I would have
voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 81 I would have voted ``yes.'' On
rollcall vote No. 82 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No.
83 I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall vote No. 84 I would have
voted ``no.'' On rollcall vote No. 85 I would have voted ``no.'' On
rollcall vote No. 86 I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 5 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
House Report 113-21.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a substitute amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014.

(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014
and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal year 2013 and for fiscal years 2015 through
2023.
(b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 201. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for job creation through
investments and incentives.
Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade adjustment assistance.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy
independence and security.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and
servicemembers.
Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicare improvement.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for extension of expiring health
care provisions.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for initiatives that benefit
children.
Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for early childhood education.
Sec. 209. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college affordability and
completion.
Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 211. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund.
Sec. 212. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for additional tax relief for
individuals and families.

TITLE III--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 301. Direct spending.

TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 403. Costs of emergency needs, Overseas Contingency Operations and
disaster relief.
Sec. 404. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative
expenses.
Sec. 405. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 406. Reinstatement of pay-as-you-go.
Sec. 407. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy of the House on jobs: Make it in America.
Sec. 502. Policy of the House on taking a balanced approach to deficit
reduction.
Sec. 503. Policy of the House on Social Security reform that protects
workers and retirees.
Sec. 504. Policy of the House on protecting the Medicare guarantee for
seniors.
Sec. 505. Policy of the House on affordable health care coverage for
working families.
Sec. 506. Policy of the House on Medicaid.
Sec. 507. Policy of the House on overseas contingency operations.
Sec. 508. Policy of the House on national security.
Sec. 509. Policy of the house on tax reform to replace the sequester
and reduce the deficit.
Sec. 510. Policy of the House on agriculture spending.
Sec. 511. Policy of the House on the use of taxpayer funds.
Sec. 512. Policy of the House on a national strategy to eradicate
poverty and increase opportunity.
Sec. 513. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction
of unnecessary and wasteful spending.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $1,982,995,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,242,550,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,693,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,903,464,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,032,279,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,162,983,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,287,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,428,663,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,606,902,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,807,739,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,996,779,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: -$55,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$28,382,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $87,215,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $124,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $128,606,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $134,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $138,320,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $144,054,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $149,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $157,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $164,634,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $3,117,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,982,872,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,020,965,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,230,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,416,527,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,611,034,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,772,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,975,108,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,149,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $4,383,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,540,638,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $2,966,674,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $3,038,888,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $3,088,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $3,255,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $3,396,419,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,563,317,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,754,491,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,935,563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $4,120,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $4,359,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $4,500,492,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: -$983,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$796,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$394,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$351,844,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$364,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$400,334,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$466,934,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$506,900,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$514,016,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$551,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: -$503,713,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $17,158,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $18,142,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,719,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $19,259,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $19,862,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $20,519,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $21,234,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $21,996,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $22,766,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $23,567,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $24,340,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $12,340,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $13,215,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,702,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $14,141,000,000,000.

[[Page H1696]]

Fiscal year 2017: $14,589,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $15,065,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $15,616,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $16,224,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $16,858,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $17,558,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $18,232,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2013 through 2023 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $559,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $610,390,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $560,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $572,903,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $560,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $561,758,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $567,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $567,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $577,839,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $569,830,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $588,142,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,817,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $598,961,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $588,374,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $612,296,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $600,383,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $626,112,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $613,414,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $639,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $632,154,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $654,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $641,132,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $47,222,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $47,883,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $46,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,641,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $47,403,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $48,444,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $49,468,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $50,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $51,639,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,207,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $52,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,218,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $53,656,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,519,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $54,791,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,430,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $29,154,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $29,675,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,413,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,290,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,006,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $30,918,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,498,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $31,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $32,213,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,748,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $32,881,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,354,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $33,563,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,021,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $34,259,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $34,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $35,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,021,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $6,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,122,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $11,469,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,803,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $4,213,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,259,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $4,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $4,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,190,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $4,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $4,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,415,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $4,868,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $4,926,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $5,029,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $5,092,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,950,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $44,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $39,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,329,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $39,201,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $39,920,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $40,909,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,687,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $42,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,420,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $42,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,041,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $43,533,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,899,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $43,626,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,069,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $44,314,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,388,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $45,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,935,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $22,373,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,777,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $21,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,377,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $21,859,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $22,516,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $22,250,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,762,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $22,392,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,854,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $22,826,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $23,156,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,640,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $23,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $23,819,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,327,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $24,197,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,721,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$30,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$24,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $17,268,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,688,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $10,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,010,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $11,392,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $12,175,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $14,403,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,511,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $16,919,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,261,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $16,983,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $17,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $20,850,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,721,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $20,854,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $586,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $150,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,939,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $87,855,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $109,088,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,295,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:

[[Page H1697]]

(A) New budget authority, $116,345,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $114,816,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $123,092,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $116,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $129,915,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $95,056,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $96,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $111,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $98,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,803,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $100,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $108,964,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $102,632,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $107,921,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $77,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,409,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $12,804,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $13,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $13,249,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,082,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $13,477,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $13,216,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $13,043,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,035,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $13,313,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,552,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $13,590,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $13,874,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $14,161,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,870,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $160,098,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $83,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $123,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $92,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,416,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $102,742,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $109,605,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $115,130,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $113,160,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $120,834,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $119,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $116,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $115,035,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $117,630,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $116,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $119,538,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $118,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $121,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $120,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $124,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $122,856,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $365,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $361,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $420,426,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $415,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $501,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $494,101,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $555,478,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $560,950,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $612,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $615,141,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $649,517,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $649,782,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $686,508,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $685,746,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $733,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $721,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $765,634,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $764,199,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $808,826,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $806,984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $857,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $856,154,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $511,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $511,240,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $524,360,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $523,798,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $527,337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $527,018,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $581,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $581,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $599,824,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $599,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $624,856,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $624,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $686,015,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $685,792,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $735,523,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $735,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $786,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $786,753,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $863,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $863,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $895,197,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $894,764,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $544,108,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $543,012,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $530,633,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $527,635,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $528,452,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $524,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $538,972,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $537,680,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $538,442,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $533,191,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $541,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $532,055,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $545,610,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $541,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $557,934,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $553,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $571,912,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $567,782,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $590,615,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $591,286,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $598,144,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $593,842,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $52,803,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $27,834,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,887,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $30,729,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,756,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $33,876,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,903,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $37,305,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,293,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $40,579,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,577,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $43,949,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,955,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $47,434,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $50,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $54,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,657,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $58,846,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,848,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $140,646,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $138,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $146,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $149,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,538,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $162,051,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $160,947,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $159,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $158,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $171,032,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $170,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $175,674,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $174,791,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $179,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $178,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $191,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $190,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $187,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $186,882,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):

[[Page H1698]]

Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $57,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,620,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $66,480,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,974,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $55,925,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,131,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $58,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $57,778,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,554,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $59,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,445,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $61,337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $63,242,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,863,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $65,350,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,861,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $71,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,797,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $73,982,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $73,433,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $24,069,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $25,459,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,273,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $27,244,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $29,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $31,061,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,895,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $32,939,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $35,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $37,615,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,190,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $40,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $42,919,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,336,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $45,599,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,056,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $331,467,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $331,467,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $343,889,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $343,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $371,611,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $371,611,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $419,889,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,889,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $506,071,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $607,385,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $607,385,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $681,354,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $681,354,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $748,802,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $748,802,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $803,446,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $803,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $856,402,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $856,402,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $904,907,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $904,907,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $383,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$8,910,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,871,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$18,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$16,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$19,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$17,821,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$26,866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$25,161,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$31,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$29,178,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$35,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$33,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$39,156,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$37,307,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$44,685,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$42,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$49,560,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$46,734,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,953,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$51,947,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -$76,489,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -$75,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -$80,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -$86,391,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -$90,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -$90,503,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,503,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -$97,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$97,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -$98,916,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$98,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -$103,177,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$103,177,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -$105,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$105,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -$108,885,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$108,885,000,000.
(21) Overseas Contingency Operations (970):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $99,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $70,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $65,387,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $32,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $12,488,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $4,186,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,239,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $399,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $104,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $33,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $16,000,000.

TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 201. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR JOB CREATION
THROUGH INVESTMENTS AND INCENTIVES.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides for robust
Federal investments in America's infrastructure, incentives
for businesses, and support for communities or other measures
that create jobs for Americans and boost the economy. The
revisions may be made for measures that--
(1) provide for additional investments in rail, aviation,
harbors (including harbor maintenance dredging), seaports,
inland waterway systems, public housing, broadband, energy,
water, and other infrastructure;
(2) provide for additional investments in other areas that
would help businesses and other employers create new jobs;
and
(3) provide additional incentives, including tax
incentives, to help small businesses, nonprofits, States, and
communities expand investment, train, hire, and retain
private-sector workers and public service employees;
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure does
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT
ASSISTANCE.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that protects workers and
supports jobs by reauthorizing Trade Adjustment Assistance by
the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASING ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that--
(1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the
production of renewable energy or increased energy
efficiency;
(2) encourages investment in emerging clean energy or
vehicle technologies or carbon capture and sequestration;

[[Page H1699]]

(3) provides additional resources for oversight and
expanded enforcement activities to crack down on speculation
in and manipulation of oil and gas markets, including
derivatives markets;
(4) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions;
(5) assists businesses, industries, States, communities,
the environment, workers, or households as the United States
moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions; or
(6) facilitates the training of workers for these
industries (``clean energy jobs'');
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 204. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS
AND SERVICEMEMBERS.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that--
(1) enhances the delivery of health care to the Nation's
veterans;
(2) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded
or disabled military personnel or veterans, including
measures to expedite the claims process;
(3) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled
military retirees to receive both disability compensation and
retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
(4) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan
annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation;
by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would
not increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE
IMPROVEMENT.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that makes improvements to
Medicare, including making reforms to the Medicare payment
system for physicians that build on delivery reforms
underway, such as advancement of new care models, and--
(1) changes incentives to encourage efficiency and higher
quality care in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal
sustainability;
(2) improves payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of
resources and ensure that patient-centered primary care
receives appropriate compensation;
(3) supports innovative programs to improve coordination of
care among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate
settings;
(4) holds providers accountable for their utilization
patterns and quality of care; and
(5) makes no changes that reduce benefits available to
seniors and individuals with disabilities in Medicare;
by the amounts provided, together with any savings from
ending Overseas Contingency Operations, in such measure if
such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the
following time periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018
or fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EXTENSION OF
EXPIRING HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that extends expiring
Medicare, Medicaid, or other health provisions, by the
amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not
increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INITIATIVES THAT
BENEFIT CHILDREN.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that improves the lives of
children by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit for either of the
following time periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018
or fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2023. Improvements may
include:
(1) Extension and expansion of child care assistance.
(2) Changes to foster care to prevent child abuse and
neglect and keep more children safely in their homes.
(3) Changes to child support enforcement to encourage
increased parental support for children, particularly from
non-custodial parents, including legislation that results in
a greater share of collected child support reaching the child
or encourages States to provide access and visitation
services to improve fathers' relationships with their
children. Such changes could reflect efforts to ensure that
States have the necessary resources to collect all child
support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass
100 percent of support on to families without financial
penalty. When 100 percent of child support payments are
passed to the child, rather than to administrative expenses,
program integrity is improved and child support participation
increases.

SEC. 208. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION.

(a) Pre-kindergarten.--The chairman of the House Committee
on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill,
joint resolution, amendment, or conference report related to
a pre-kindergarten program or programs to serve low-income
children, by the amounts provided in such measure if such
measure would not increase the deficit for either of the
following time periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018
or fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2023.
(b) Child Care.--The chairman of the House Committee on the
Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report related to child
care assistance for working families, by the amounts provided
in such measure if such measure would not increase the
deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year
2023.
(c) Home Visiting.--The chairman of the House Committee on
the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report related to a home
visiting program or programs serving low-income mothers-to-be
and low-income families, by the amounts provided in such
measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for
either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2013 to
fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2023

SEC. 209. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE
AFFORDABILITY AND COMPLETION.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that makes college more
affordable and increases college completion, including:
efforts to reform Federal student aid policies to ensure that
subsidized student loan interest rates do not double in July
2014 at the end of the one-year extension of the current 3.4
percent interest rate assumed in the resolution; or efforts
to ensure continued full funding for Pell grants, by the
amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not
increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND
SCHOOLS.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report 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 for
either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2013 to
fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 211. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TRUST FUND.

SEC. 212. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX
RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.

The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report that provides additional tax
relief to individuals and families, such as expanding tax
relief provided by the refundable child credit, by the
amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not
increase the deficit for either of the following time
periods: fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year
2013 to fiscal year 2023.

TITLE III--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 301. DIRECT SPENDING.

[[Page H1700]]

total level of outlays during the 11-year period beginning
with fiscal year 2013 is 5.1 percent under current law.
(3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent
resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending: For Medicare,
this budget rejects proposals to end the Medicare guarantee
and shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing
Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of
private insurance. Such proposals will expose seniors and
persons with disabilities on fixed incomes to unacceptable
financial risks, and they will weaken the traditional
Medicare program. Instead, this budget builds on the success
of the Affordable Care Act, which made significant strides in
health care cost containment and put into place a framework
for continuous innovation. This budget supports comprehensive
reforms to give physicians and other care providers
incentives to provide high-quality, coordinated, efficient
care, in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal
sustainability. It makes no changes that reduce benefits
available to seniors and individuals with disabilities in
Medicare.

TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or
conference report making a general appropriation or
continuing appropriation may not provide for advance
appropriations.
(b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
(1) for fiscal year 2015 for programs, projects,
activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory
statement of managers to accompany this resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new
budget authority, and for 2016, accounts separately
identified under the same heading; and
(2) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical
Services, Medical Support and Compliance, and Medical
Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 that first becomes
available for any fiscal year after 2014.

SEC. 402. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) Program Integrity Initiatives Under the Budget Control
Act.--
(1) Social security administration program integrity
initiatives.--In the House, prior to consideration of any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
making appropriations for fiscal year 2014 that appropriates
amounts as provided under section 251(b)(2)(B) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall
be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and
outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year
2014.
(2) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the
House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report making appropriations for
fiscal year 2014 that appropriates amounts as provided under
section 251(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, the allocation to the House
Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount
of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from
that budget authority for fiscal year 2014.
(b) Additional Program Integrity Initiatives.--
(1) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House,
prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report making appropriations for
fiscal year 2014 that appropriates $9,753,000,000 for the
Internal Revenue Service for enhanced enforcement to address
the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid) and provides an
additional appropriation of up to $1,018,000,000, to the
Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated for
enhanced tax enforcement to address the tax gap, the
allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be
increased by the amount of additional budget authority and
outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year
2014.
(2) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report making
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 that appropriates
$60,000,000 for in-person reemployment and eligibility
assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment
reviews for the Department of Labor and provides an
additional appropriation of up to $20,000,000, and the amount
is designated for in-person reemployment and eligibility
assessments and unemployment insurance improper payment
reviews for the Department of Labor, the allocation to the
House Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the
amount of additional budget authority and outlays resulting
from that budget authority for fiscal year 2014.
(c) Procedure for Adjustments.--Prior to consideration of
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report,
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make
the adjustments set forth in this subsection for the
incremental new budget authority in that measure and the
outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure
meets the requirements set forth in this section.

SEC. 403. COSTS OF EMERGENCY NEEDS, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS AND DISASTER RELIEF.

(a) Emergency Needs.--If any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for
discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as
necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to this
subsection, then new budget authority and outlays resulting
from that budget authority shall not count for the purposes
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or this resolution.
(b) Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the House, if any
bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 or fiscal year 2014 for
overseas contingency operations and such amounts are so
designated pursuant to this paragraph, then the allocation to
the House Committee on Appropriations may be adjusted by the
amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose up to
the amounts of budget authority specified in section 102(21)
for fiscal year 2013 or the 2014 level for Overseas
Contingency Operations in the President's 2014 budget and the
new outlays resulting from that budget authority.
(c) Disaster Relief.--In the House, if any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report makes
appropriations for discretionary amounts and such amounts are
designated for disaster relief pursuant to this subsection,
then the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations, and
as necessary, the aggregates in this resolution, shall be
adjusted by the amount of new budget authority and outlays up
to the amounts provided under section 251(b)(2)(D) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(d) Procedure for Adjustments.--Prior to consideration of
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report,
the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget shall make
the adjustments set forth in subsections (b) and (c) for the
incremental new budget authority in that measure and the
outlays resulting from that budget authority if that measure
meets the requirements set forth in this section.

SEC. 404. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint
explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on
any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to the House Committee on Appropriations amounts
for the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration and of the Postal Service.
(b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f)
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.

SEC. 405. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--In the House, any adjustments of
allocations and aggregates made pursuant to this resolution
shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in
this resolution.
(c) Adjustments.--The chairman of the House Committee on
the Budget may adjust the aggregates, allocations, and other
levels in this resolution for legislation which has received
final congressional approval in the same form by the House of
Representatives and the Senate, but has yet to be presented
to or signed by the President at the time of final
consideration of this resolution.

SEC. 406. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

In the House, and pursuant to section 301(b)(8) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the remainder of the
113th Congress, the following shall apply in lieu of
``CUTGO'' rules and principles:
(1) (A) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), it
shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such
measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net
effect of increasing the on-budget deficit or reducing the
on-budget surplus for the period comprising either--
(i) the current year, the budget year, and the four years
following that budget year; or
(ii) the current year, the budget year, and the nine years
following that budget year.
(B) The effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus
shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
Committee on the Budget.

[[Page H1701]]

(C) For the purpose of this section, the terms ``budget
year'', ``current year'', and ``direct spending'' have the
meanings specified in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that the term
``direct spending'' shall also include provisions in
appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to
substantive law as described in section 3(4) (C) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
(2) If a bill, joint resolution, or amendment is considered
pursuant to a special order of the House directing the Clerk
to add as a new matter at the end of such measure the
provisions of a separate measure as passed by the House, the
provisions of such separate measure as passed by the House
shall be included in the evaluation under paragraph (1) of
the bill, joint resolution, or amendment.
(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
evaluation under paragraph (1) shall exclude a provision
expressly designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-
you-go principles in the case of a point of order under this
clause against consideration of--
(i) a bill or joint resolution;
(ii) an amendment made in order as original text by a
special order of business;
(iii) a conference report; or
(iv) an amendment between the Houses.
(B) In the case of an amendment (other than one specified
in subparagraph (A)) to a bill or joint resolution, the
evaluation under paragraph (1) shall give no cognizance to
any designation of emergency.
(C) If a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment made in
order as original text by a special order of business, a
conference report, or an amendment between the Houses
includes a provision expressly designated as an emergency for
purposes of pay-as-you-go principles, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect thereto.

SEC. 407. 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, 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 V--POLICY

SEC. 501. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON JOBS: MAKE IT IN AMERICA.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the economy entered a deep recession in December 2007
that was worsened by a financial crisis in 2008 - by January
2009, the private sector was shedding 821,000 jobs per month;
(2) actions by the President, Congress, and the Federal
Reserve helped stem the crisis, and job creation resumed in
2010, with the economy creating 6.4 million private jobs over
the past 36 consecutive months;
(3) multi-year across-the-board spending cuts under
sequestration will cost Americans millions of jobs with up to
750,000 jobs lost this year alone, slow economic growth by up
to one third this year alone, and impair our global
competitive edge;
(4) as part of a ``Make it in America'' agenda, U.S.
manufacturing has been leading the Nation's economic recovery
as domestic manufacturers regain their economic and
competitive edge and a wave of insourcing jobs from abroad
begins;
(5) despite the job gains already made, job growth needs to
accelerate and continue for an extended period for the
economy to fully recover from the recession; and
(6) job creation is vital to Nation-building at home and to
deficit reduction - CBO has noted that if the country were at
full employment, the deficit would be about half its current
size.
(b) Policy.--
(1) In general.--It is the policy of this resolution that
Congress should pursue a ``Make it in America'' agenda with a
priority to consider and enact legislation to help create
jobs, remove incentives to out-source jobs overseas and
instead support incentives that bring jobs back to the U.S.,
and help middle class families by increasing the minimum
wage.
(2) Jobs.--This resolution--
(A) assumes enactment of legislation to replace
sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011 with at
least the same amount of deficit reduction from a balanced
approach that would increase revenues without increasing that
tax burden on middle-income Americans, and decrease long-term
spending while maintaining the Medicare guarantee, protecting
Social Security and a strong social safety net, and making
strategic investments in education, science, research, and
critical infrastructure necessary to compete in the global
economy.
(B) assumes enactment of--
(i) the President's $50 billion immediate transportation
jobs package;
(ii) other measures proposed in the American Jobs Act and
reflected in the President's 2013 budget; and
(iii) the President's proposed surface transportation
legislation;
(C) assumes $1 billion for the President's proposal to
establish a Veterans Job Corps;
(D) assumes $80 billion in education jobs funding for the
President's initiatives to promote jobs now while also
creating an infrastructure that will help students learn and
create a better future workforce, including $30 billion for
rebuilding at least 35,000 public schools, $25 billion to
prevent hundreds of thousands of educator layoffs, and $8
billion to help community colleges train 2 million workers in
high-growth industries with skills that will lead directly to
jobs; and
(E) establishes a reserve fund that would allow for passage
of additional job creation measures, including further
infrastructure improvements and support for biomedical
research that both creates jobs and advances scientific
knowledge and health, or other spending or revenue proposals.

SEC. 502. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAKING A BALANCED APPROACH
TO DEFICIT REDUCTION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) every bipartisan commission has recommended, and the
majority of Americans agree, that we should take a balanced,
bipartisan approach to reducing the deficit that addresses
both revenue and spending; and
(2) sequestration is a meat-ax approach to deficit
reduction that imposes deep and mindless cuts, regardless of
their impact on vital services and investments.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the resolution that--
(1) the Congress should vote on H.R. 699, which would
replace the sequester for calendar year 2013 with a balanced
mix of targeted and better timed spending reductions and
revenue increases to prevent the loss of jobs and the drag on
economic growth in the near term; and
(2) the Congress should replace the entire 10-year
sequester established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 with
a balanced approach that would increase revenues without
increasing the tax burden on middle-income Americans, and
decrease long-term spending while maintaining the Medicare
guarantee, protecting Social Security and a strong social
safety net, and making strategic investments in education,
science, research, and critical infrastructure necessary to
compete in the global economy.

SEC. 503. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM THAT
PROTECTS WORKERS AND RETIREES.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) Social Security is America's most important retirement
resource, especially for seniors, because it provides an
income floor to keep them, their spouses and their survivors
out of poverty during retirement - benefits earned based on
their past payroll contributions;
(2) in January 2011, 56.8 million people relied on Social
Security;
(3) Social Security benefits are modest, with an average
annual benefit for retirees of about $15,000, which is the
majority of total retirement income for more than half of all
beneficiaries;
(4) diverting workers' payroll contributions toward private
accounts undermines retirement security and the social safety
net by subjecting the workers' retirement decisions and
income to the whims of the stock market;
(5) diverting trust fund payroll contributions toward
private accounts jeopardizes Social Security because the
program will not have the resources to pay full benefits to
current retirees; and
(6) privatization increases Federal debt because the
Treasury will have to borrow additional funds from the public
to pay full benefits to current retirees.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Social
Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to
achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals
are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement
security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform
legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of
the program.

SEC. 504. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON PROTECTING THE MEDICARE
GUARANTEE FOR SENIORS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly
value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee
their health and financial security;
(2) in 2012, 50 million people relied on Medicare for
coverage of hospital stays, physician visits, prescription
drugs, and other necessary medical goods and services;
(3) the Medicare program has lower administrative and
program costs than private insurance for a given level of
benefits;
(4) rising health care costs are not unique to Medicare or
other Federal health programs, they are endemic to the entire
health care system;
(5) destroying the Medicare program and replacing it with a
voucher or premium support for the purchase of private
insurance that fails to keep pace with growth in health costs
will expose seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed
incomes to unacceptable financial risks;
(6) shifting more health care costs onto Medicare
beneficiaries would not reduce overall health care costs,
instead it would mean beneficiaries would face higher
premiums, eroding coverage, or both; and
(7) versions of voucher or premium-support policies that do
not immediately end the traditional Medicare program will
merely cause traditional Medicare to weaken and wither away.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the
Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities
should be preserved and strengthened, and that any
legislation

[[Page H1702]]

to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising health care
costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or
premium support for the purchase of private insurance should
be rejected.

SEC. 505. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE FOR WORKING FAMILIES.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) making health care coverage affordable and accessible
for all American families will improve families' health and
economic security, which will make the economy stronger;
(2) the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010 will
expand coverage to 27 million Americans and bring costs down
for families and small businesses;
(3) consumers are already benefitting from the Affordable
Care Act's provisions to hold insurance companies accountable
for their actions and to end long-standing practices such as
denying coverage to children based on pre-existing
conditions, imposing lifetime limits on coverage that put
families at risk of bankruptcy in the event of serious
illness, and dropping an enrollee's coverage once the
enrollee becomes ill based on a simple mistake in the
enrollee's application;
(4) the Affordable Care Act reforms Federal health
entitlements by using nearly every health cost-containment
provision experts recommend, including new incentives to
reward quality and coordination of care rather than simply
quantity of services provided, new tools to crack down on
fraud, and the elimination of excessive taxpayer subsidies to
private insurance plans, and as a result will slow the
projected annual growth rate of national health expenditures
by 0.3 percentage points after 2016, the essence of ``bending
the cost curve''; and
(5) the Affordable Care Act will reduce the Federal deficit
by more than $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 20 years.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the law of
the land should support making affordable health care
coverage available to every American family, and therefore
the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed.

SEC. 506. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICAID.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) Medicaid is a central component of the Nation's health
care safety net, providing health coverage to 28 million low-
income children, 5 million senior citizens, 10 million people
with disabilities, and 14 million other low-income people who
would otherwise be unable to obtain health insurance;
(2) senior citizens and people with disabilities account
for two-thirds of Medicaid program spending and consequently
would be at particular risk of losing access to important
health care assistance under any policy to sever the link
between Medicaid funding and the actual costs of providing
services to the currently eligible Medicaid population;
(3) Medicaid pays for 43 percent of long-term care services
in the United States, providing a critical health care safety
net for senior citizens and people with disabilities facing
significant costs for long-term care; and
(4) at least 70 percent of people over age 65 will likely
need long-term care services at some point in their lives.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the
important health care safety net for children, senior
citizens, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable
Americans provided by Medicaid should be preserved and should
not be dismantled by converting Medicaid into a block grant,
per capita cap, or other financing arrangement that would
limit Federal contributions and render the program incapable
of responding to increased need that may result from trends
in health care costs or economic conditions.

SEC. 507. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that it is the stated
position of the Administration that Afghan troops will take
the full lead for security operations in Afghanistan by the
end of 2014.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that
consistent with the Administration's stated position, no
funding shall be provided for operations in Afghanistan
through the Overseas Contingency Operations budget beyond
2014.

SEC. 508. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) we must continue to support a strong military that is
second to none and the size and the structure of our military
have to be driven by a strategy;
(2) those who serve in uniform are our most important
security resource and the Administration and Congress shall
continue to provide the support they need to successfully
carry out the missions the country gives them;
(3) a growing economy is the foundation of our security and
enables the country to provide the resources for a strong
military, sound homeland security agencies, and effective
diplomacy and international development;
(4) 750,000 jobs will be lost in calendar year 2013 if the
across-the-board cuts known as sequestration remain in
effect, hampering the economic recovery and jeopardizing the
foundation of our security,
(5) because it puts our economy at risk, the Nation's debt
is an immense security threat to our country, just as former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen has
stated, and we must have a deficit reduction plan that is
serious and realistic;
(6) the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici
Debt Reduction Task Force concluded that a serious and
balanced deficit reduction plan must put national security
programs on the table;
(7) in 2011, the U.S. spent more on defense than the next
16 countries combined (and more than half of the amount spent
by those 16 countries was from seven NATO countries and four
other close allies);
(8) Admiral Mullen argued that the permissive budget
environment over the last decade, a period when defense
spending increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, had
allowed the Pentagon to avoid prioritizing;
(9) more can be done to rein in wasteful spending at the
Nation's security agencies, including the Department of
Defense -- the last department still unable to pass an audit
-- such as the elimination of duplicative programs that have
been identified by the Government Accountability Office;
(10) effective implementation of weapons acquisition
reforms at the Department of Defense can help control
excessive cost growth in the development of new weapons
systems and help ensure that weapons systems are delivered on
time and in adequate quantities to equip our servicemen and
servicewomen;
(11) the Department of Defense should continue to review
defense plans and requirements to ensure that weapons
developed to counter Cold War-era threats are not redundant
and are applicable to 21st century threats, which should
include, with the participation of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, examination of requirements for the
nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons delivery systems,
and nuclear weapons and infrastructure modernization;
(12) weapons technologies should be proven to work through
adequate testing before advancing them to the production
phase of the acquisition process;
(13) the Pentagon's operation and maintenance budget, which
now totals $200 billion per year, has grown for decades
between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent above inflation each year
on a per service member basis, and it is imperative that
unsustainable cost growth be controlled in this area;
(14) excluding those involved in war operations, 200,000
military personnel and their dependents are stationed
overseas, and the Administration should further review the
benefits and costs of alternatives to permanent overseas
basing of personnel;
(15) more than 94 percent of the increase in the Federal
civilian workforce since 2001 is due to increases at
security-related agencies--Department of Defense (31
percent), Department of Homeland Security (32 percent),
Department of Veterans Affairs (26 percent), and Department
of Justice (6 percent)--and the increase, in part, represents
a transition to ensure civil servants, as opposed to private
contractors, are performing inherently governmental work and
an increase to a long-depleted acquisition and auditing
workforce at the Pentagon to ensure effective management of
weapons systems programs, to eliminate the use of contractors
to oversee other contractors, and to prevent waste, fraud,
and abuse;
(16) proposals to implement an indiscriminate 10 percent
across-the-board cut to the Federal civilian workforce would
adversely affect security agencies, leaving them unable to
manage their total workforce, which includes contractors, and
their operations in a cost-effective manner; and
(17) cooperative threat reduction and other
nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other
materials used in weapons of mass destruction), which were
highlighted as high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need
to be funded at a level that is commensurate with the
evolving threat.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that--
(1) the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of
2011 should be rescinded and replaced by a deficit reduction
plan that is balanced, that makes smart spending cuts, that
requires everyone to pay their fair share, and that takes
into account a comprehensive national security strategy that
includes careful consideration of international, defense,
homeland security, and law enforcement programs;
(2) further savings can be achieved from the national
defense budget without compromising our security through
greater emphasis on eliminating duplicative and wasteful
programs, reforming the acquisition process, identifying and
constraining unsustainable operating costs, and through
careful analysis of our security strategy; and
(3) veterans programs are fully funded and if there is new
information provided in the President's 2014 budget that
would justify the need for funds in excess of the amount
reflected in section 102(15), adjustments shall be made from
within the discretionary totals to meet any such new
requirements.

SEC. 509. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAX REFORM TO REPLACE THE
SEQUESTER AND REDUCE THE DEFICIT.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that--
(1) the sequester represents a meat-ax approach to cutting
government spending and will cost the economy 750,000 jobs in
2013 alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office;
(2) the House must therefore replace the sequester with a
balanced approach to deficit reduction that would raise
revenues in addition to making targeted spending cuts;
(3) this balanced approach to deficit reduction must
include overhauling our outdated

[[Page H1703]]

tax code -which contains numerous, wasteful tax breaks for
special interests - to make it simpler, more progressive, and
more competitive;
(4) these special tax breaks can greatly complicate the
effort to administer the code and the taxpayer's ability to
fully comply with its terms, while also undermining our basic
sense of fairness;
(5) the corporate income tax does include a number of
incentives that help spur economic growth and innovation,
such as the research and development credit and clean energy
incentives;
(6) but tax breaks for special interests can also distort
economic incentives for businesses and consumers and
encourage businesses to ship American jobs and capital
overseas for tax purposes;
(7) the President's National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform observed that the corporate income
tax is riddled with special interest tax breaks and
subsidies, is badly in need of reform, and it proposed to
streamline the code, capturing some of the savings in the
process, to achieve deficit reduction in a more balanced way;
(8) even Speaker Boehner indicated that he has a plan that
would raise an additional $800 billion in revenues through
closing tax loopholes and eliminating special interest tax
breaks.
(b) Policy.--
(1) Policy on individual income taxes.--
(A) This resolution encourages the House Committee on Ways
and Means to help reduce the deficit and replace the
sequester through a balanced approach that includes limits on
tax expenditures and tax breaks for very high-income
individuals. This resolution expressly rejects the approach
in the Republican resolution that provides millionaires with
even larger tax cuts at the expense of middle-class
taxpayers. This resolution also expressly rejects raising
taxes on middle-class taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes
below $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) and reflects
the tax rates and income thresholds established in the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. This resolution
therefore encourages the House Committee on Ways and Means to
raise the revenue needed through closing loopholes and ending
tax breaks for special interests and the very wealthy,
consistent with key proposals made by both the President and
the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
to limit tax expenditures.
(B) This resolution supports working families, encourages
increased labor force participation, and boosts access to
higher education by permanently extending the expansions to
the child tax credit, the EITC, and the American Opportunity
Tax Credit, respectively, first legislated under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
(C) This resolution extends policies that reinvest in
domestic manufacturing to bring jobs back to our shores;
builds up the renewable energy production capacity of the
United States in order to limit our reliance on foreign oil
while creating green jobs; expands access to higher
education, which everyone agrees is essential for building up
a highly-skilled workforce and building out the middle class;
and supports saving and capital formation that will raise
future standards of living.
(2) Policy on corporate income taxes.--
(A) This resolution proposes eliminating unproductive or
unwarranted corporate tax preferences and subsidies, as well
as pernicious tax breaks that reward U.S. corporations that
ship American jobs - rather than products - overseas for tax
purposes.
(B) This resolution adopts pro-growth corporate tax
incentives like those in the President's FY 2013 budget
proposals, such as: enhancing incentives for domestic
manufacturing to support a ``Make it in America'' agenda,
including providing a tax credit for companies that return
operations and jobs to the U.S. while eliminating tax breaks
for companies that move operations and jobs overseas; closing
loopholes that allow businesses to avoid taxes, by subjecting
more of their foreign earnings sheltered in tax havens to
U.S. taxation; the research and development credit; and
enhancing clean energy incentives.
(C) This resolution therefore urges the House Committee on
Ways and Means to consider the President's proposals for
business tax reform in determining how to best overhaul our
corporate tax code so that it promotes economic growth and
domestic job creation without increasing the deficit and the
debt.

SEC. 510. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AGRICULTURE SPENDING.

It is the policy of this resolution that the House
Committee on Agriculture should reduce spending in farm
programs that provide direct payments to producers even in
robust markets and in times of bumper yields. The committee
should also find ways to focus assistance toward struggling
family farmers and ranchers in a manner that creates jobs and
economic growth while preserving the farm and nutrition
safety net.

SEC. 511. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS.

It is the policy of this resolution that the House should
lead by example and 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
shall review the policies pertaining to the services provided
to Members of Congress and House Committees, and shall
identify ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the operation
of the House gym, Barber shop, Salon, and the House dining
room. Further, it is the policy of this resolution that no
taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first class airfare or
to lease corporate jets for Members of Congress.

SEC. 512. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO
ERADICATE POVERTY AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The prospect of upward mobility should be the right of
every American.
(2) Targeted, means-tested Federal programs help lift
millions of Americans out of poverty.
(3) These programs empower their beneficiaries through job
training, educational assistance, adequate food, housing, and
health care to rise to the middle class.
(4) The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program alone
lifts over 4 million people out of poverty, including over 2
million children. It is particularly effective in keeping
children - over 1 million - out of deep poverty (below half
the poverty line). School breakfast and lunch programs help
keep children ready to learn, allowing them to reach their
full potential.
(5) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax
Credit together lift over 9 million people, including nearly
5 million children, out of poverty. President Ronald Reagan
proposed a major EITC expansion in 1985 and then referred to
the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which included the expansion, as
``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job
creation measure to come out of Congress''.
(6) However, some areas of the country have been left
behind. They face persistent high levels of poverty and
joblessness. Citizens of these areas often lack access to
quality schools, affordable health care, and adequate job
opportunities.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House to support the
goal of developing a national strategy to eliminate poverty,
with the initial goal of cutting poverty in half in ten
years, and to extend equitable access to economic opportunity
to all Americans. As Congress works to protect low income and
middle class Americans from the negative impacts of budget
cuts on the critical domestic programs that millions of
American families rely on to get by, priority must be given
to creating a national strategy on poverty to maximize the
impact of anti-poverty programs across Federal, State, and
local governments. Improving the effective coordination and
oversight across agencies and implementing a true unity of
programs under a ``whole of government'' approach to shared
goals and client based outcomes will help to streamline
access, improve service delivery, and will strengthen and
extend the reach of every Federal dollar to fight poverty.
The plan should consider additional targeting of spending
toward persistent poverty areas to revitalize these areas of
pervasive poverty, unemployment and general distress. The
plan must also include provisions that work to remove the
barriers and obstacles that prevent the most vulnerable
Americans from taking advantage of economic and educational
opportunities and moving up the ladder of opportunity to join
the middle class and reach for the American Dream.

SEC. 513. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING.

[[Page H1704]]

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 changed.

Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution setting forth
the congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2014 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2015 through 2023.''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 122, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.

{time} 1610

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, today we are offering a budget with
commonsense solutions that first focuses on the issue that's most
pressing for the country and the American people today: kicking our
economy into higher gear and putting more Americans back to work.
We know from the Congressional Budget Office--the professionals--that
one-half of this year's deficit is due to the fact that millions of
Americans are still looking for work and that three-quarters of next
year's deficit is because we're not at full employment.
Our budget goes to the heart of the issue. It attacks the jobs
deficit because we know we can't get the budget deficit under control
until people are back to work and we take a balanced approach to long-
term deficit reduction where we ask for shared responsibility.
We do ask people at the very high end of the income ladder to give up
some of the tax preferences and tax breaks they have in order to help
reduce the deficit. It's very different than the Republican budget that
doesn't close one tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit.
Theirs only lowers tax rates for folks at the very top by increasing
the tax burden on middle-income Americans. We don't do that.
We make sure that people can get back to work by replacing the
sequester, which we know will result in 750,000 fewer Americans working
at the end of this year. We also have a jobs program investing in this
country, especially in the area of infrastructure, to help rebuild our
aging infrastructure and build the modern infrastructure that's
necessary to compete in the 21st century. Those measures will make sure
that, compared to our Republican colleague's budget, we have 1.2
million more Americans working by the end of this year and 2 million
more by the end of next year.
We also make sure we keep our commitments to our seniors. Unlike the
Republican budget, we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole,
which will mean seniors with high prescription drug costs will have to
pay thousands more out of pocket over the period of this budget, and we
don't turn Medicare into a voucher program that leaves seniors facing
the risks and costs of escalating health care costs in the future.
We make sure that students don't face a doubling of the interest rate
in July, scheduled to go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The
Republican budget keeps that doubling of interest rate in place. We
don't.
We fully fund the transportation program for the next 10 years. The
Republican budget cuts it by 20 percent, even at a time when we have 15
percent unemployment in the construction industry.
Mr. Chairman, we get at the budget issues by putting more people back
to work, by dealing with this in a balanced way. We reduce the deficit
way down so it's growing much slower than the economy. We stabilize the
debt, and we balance the budget in the same time period that the
Republican budget for the last 2 years had balanced the budget, but our
focus is on jobs and the jobs deficit as a way to tackle the budget
deficit.
With that, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague and
friend, the distinguished whip from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. I first want to thank the ranking member for the work that
he's done on this budget that he offers as an alternative.
It is a reasonable alternative that can be implemented. To that
extent, it's a stark difference to the majority's proposal, which will
not be implemented, and they know it.
Let me start with an observation, a headline, ``Blunt Report Says GOP
Needs to Regroup for '16.''
In that, there is this sentence from the report. It's not from a
Democrat, not from the newspaper, not from an editorial writer. It
says, ``We have become expert''--``we,'' being the Republican Party.

We have become expert in how to provide ideological
reenforcement to like-minded people.

With all due respect to my friend, Mr. Ryan, that's what his budget
is: it is a vision. It is a vision that will not be implemented, and he
knows it.
He knows that the Appropriations Committee will not be able to report
out bills consistent with his budget, nor will the Ways and Means
Committee come even close to reporting out bills that will implement
his budget. Why? Because they're so draconian. And as I have said
before, if every Democrat were taken out of this House and every
Democrat taken out of the Senate, you would not implement the Ryan
budget.
Mr. Van Hollen has put together a balanced plan. Yes, it has
revenues, and, yes, it keeps the Affordable Care Act in place, and,
yes, it provides for funding for investment in growing our economy.
Mr. Ryan knows--and I have great respect for Mr. Ryan. I have great
respect for his intellect and, frankly, from time to time, for his
political courage. We voted together on TARP. It was a tough vote for
him. It was a tough vote for me. It was a tough vote, period. But it
was the right vote for the economy. We would have been in a depression
had we not voted for that bill, and I congratulate Mr. Ryan on doing
that.

But I'll lament the fact that we do not have an equally honest but
tough resolution of a big deal in how to get from where we are--too
much debt, too much deficit--to where we need to be: a fiscally
sustainable path.
We will not get there, I tell my friend, by vision alone. Courage
will be much more important than vision in that case. And Mr. Van
Hollen has shown courage by offering a budget that will provide for our
people, for our country, and for our economy.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Van Hollen alternative. Why?
Because it is a responsible, fiscally implementable--there's a word for
you--fiscally doable alternative.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Ezra Klein, who may not be your favorite writer, says:

Ryan's tax reform plan costs more than all his spending
cuts combined.

That's why I say it can't be implemented. And if we were in private
and there were no politics involved, I think my friend would admit
that. He shakes his head ``no.'' I didn't expect anything different
than that.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is an important statement of vision. It's
an important statement of what our priorities are. It's an important
statement to the American people, to seniors, to students, to families,
to children where our priorities are.
The Van Hollen priorities are the right priorities for America, and I
urge my colleagues to support the Van Hollen alternative.

{time} 1620

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes.
I enjoyed my friend from Maryland, and I appreciate his attempt to
speak on my behalf. I will just try to do that myself. There is one
thing that is identical in this budget--the base budget--and the Senate
budget: it's the appropriations No. 966. It's the one thing that is
equal in both the House and the Senate budgets.
The reason I rise in opposition to this budget, unlike what the
gentleman just said, is that there is no way this could pass. I would
say the opposite. Why? This budget never balances the budget.

[[Page H1705]]

You will hear Mr. Van Hollen claim that, in 2040, because of certain
assumptions they, on their own, make and that cannot be verified by the
CBO, they think they'll balance. It never, ever balances the budget.
Here is why:
We are going to go from a $16-plus trillion debt to a $25 trillion
debt in this budget--period. What does this great budget do? It shaves
$612 billion off the debt. It has a $1.2 trillion tax increase. It has
a $476 billion spending increase. We've got a $1 trillion deficit.
We're piling debt as high as the eye can see, and they bring a budget
to the floor that is increasing spending?
Let's look at every budget offered by the other side: a $1.2 trillion
tax increase by Mr. Van Hollen and a $476 billion spending increase;
the Congressional Black Caucus has a $2.8 trillion tax increase with
$1.1 trillion spending increase; the Progressive Caucus--that's the
doozy of them all--has a $5.7 trillion tax increase with a $4.065
trillion spending increase.
Here is the theme:
Take more money from the economy; take more money from families; take
more money from small businesses--spend it in Washington, and hope
everything works out.
It's not working out.
Families are struggling because of this borrowing, because of this
debt. We need to reject this amendment and go with something that
works, and that means balancing the budget to get a healthier economy
to create jobs, which is precisely what our budget does.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 2013]

How the House Budget Would Boost the Economy

(By John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor)

This week the House of Representatives will vote on its
Budget Committee plan, which would bring federal finances
into balance by 2023. The plan would do so by gradually
slowing the growth in federal spending without raising taxes.
Still, the plan has been denounced by naysayers who assert
that it would harm the economic recovery and that, at the
least, any spending reductions should be put off until later.
This thinking is just as wrong now as it was in the 1970s.
According to our research, the spending restraint and
balanced-budget parts of the House Budget Committee plan
would boost the economy immediately. With the Budget
Committee's proposed tax reform included, the immediate
impact would be even larger. The entire plan would raise
gross domestic product by one percentage point in 2014,
equivalent to about a $1,500 increase for each U.S.
household. Ten years from now, at the end of the official
budget horizon, we estimate that the entire plan would raise
GDP by three percentage points, or more than $4,000 for each
U.S. household.
Our assessment is based on a modern macroeconomic model
(developed with Volker Wieland of the University of Frankfurt
and Maik Wolters of the University of Kiel) whose features
include a recognition that the resources to finance
government expenditures aren't free--they withdraw resources
from the private economy. The model provides for other
essential attributes of the economy--that consumers,
businesses and workers respond to incentives, and they are
influenced by their expectation of future economic conditions
when making decisions today. None of these features is
provided for in old-style Keynesian models.
The House budget plan keeps total federal outlays at their
current level for two years. Thereafter, spending would rise
each year, but more slowly than if present policies continue.
By 2023, federal expenditures would decline to 19.1% of GDP
in 2023 from 22.2% today.
Since the Congressional Budget Office projects that
revenues will equal 19.1% of GDP in 2023, the House plan will
balance the budget that year. Also by 2023, the publicly held
federal debt relative to GDP would decline to 55% from its
current high level of 76%.
The House budget is hardly austere: The federal spending
claim on GDP would still be considerably higher than it was
in fiscal 2000 (18.2%) and only slightly below its claim on
GDP in 2007 (19.7%).
The reductions in the growth rate of spending are to be
achieved primarily through entitlement reforms. The
Affordable Care Act would be repealed. Medicaid and food-
stamp administration would be turned over to the states.
Medicare would be fundamentally reformed. Anti-fraud measures
would be applied to federal disability programs. Among the
major entitlement programs, only Social Security would remain
unchanged; this is a deficiency in the plan. As for
discretionary spending, the House budget plan would provide
for only slight reductions from the levels that are set by
the budget sequester.
The long-run economic gains from restraining government
spending would not, despite what critics claim, harm the
economy in the short run. Instead, the economy would start to
grow right away. Why?
First, the lower level of future government spending avoids
the necessity of sharply raising taxes. The expectation that
tax rates won't need to rise provides incentives for higher
investment and employment today.
Second, since the expectation of lower future taxes has the
effect of raising people's estimation of future disposable
income, consumption increases today. This change comes thanks
to Milton Friedman's famous ``permanent income'' hypothesis
that the behavior of consumers reflects what they expect to
earn over a long period. According to our macroeconomic
model, the higher level of consumption induced by the House
budget's effect on consumer expectations is large enough to
offset the reduced growth of government spending.
Third, the new budget's reduction in the growth of
government spending is gradual. That allows private
businesses to adjust efficiently without disruptions.
Still, our macroeconomic model likely underestimates the
positive impact of the House budget plan. The model doesn't
account for the greater economic certainty that results from
preventing the national debt from soaring to dangerously high
levels and from stabilizing the federal tax burden. Nor does
the model account for beneficial changes in monetary policy
that could accompany enactment of the budget plan. Lower
deficits and national debt would reduce pressure on the
Federal Reserve to continue buying longterm Treasury bonds.
The U.S. economy has been experiencing its slowest recovery
from a deep recession in modern history. Tragically, fewer
people are working as a percentage of the working-age
population than when the recovery began--and economic growth
was only 1.6% last year. The large federal budget deficits--
by increasing uncertainty and delaying private spending--are
an important cause of this lackluster economic performance.
For too long, policy makers have been misguided by models
that lend support to bigger government or to the politically
convenient objective of delaying any reduction in spending.
It is better to recognize the flaws in this approach and get
on with the sensible budget reforms the country so sorely
needs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think, if you ask the American people, they know what
the challenge is right now. It's getting the economy back in full gear,
and they're struggling because too many of them can't find a job, and
the Republican budget will make that even worse. That's not me saying
it. That's not a Democratic economist saying it. Those are the
professionals at the Congressional Budget Office saying it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't have enough time. On your time, I'm happy to,
my friend, but I can't do it right now.
Let me say another thing, Mr. Chairman, with respect to balance. It's
really interesting.
One of the reasons the Republican budget that last year came into
balance in 2040 and the year before was able to balance this year is
that the increase in per capita health care costs has come down
significantly, in part because of the Affordable Care Act and the
changes in incentives. In fact, if you applied much more reasonable
assumptions to our proposals than the Congressional Budget Office
applied to the Republican budget last year, you'd get balance. I know
our Republican colleagues don't want to hear it. Now our focus and our
priority is on dealing with the jobs deficit. That is the best way to
reduce the long-term deficit and to do it in a balanced way.
I now yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished assistant Democratic
leader, my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you so much for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ryan budget.
The Ryan budget ignores the express will of the American people and
doubles down on the ``you're on your own'' Republican platform that the
voters soundly rejected just a few months ago. Rather than taking a
fair and balanced approach to deficit reduction, the Ryan budget will
kill millions of jobs, slash needed investments, raise taxes on working
families, and create big, new tax breaks for the wealthiest few. The
Ryan budget will block grant Medicaid, voucherize Medicare, and rip up
the safety net that's at the heart of the social contract in this
country. There are many words that can be used to describe the Ryan
budget, but the one word that cannot be used is ``balanced.''
I am pleased that the Democratic alternative and the CBC budget that
we voted on both include versions of a proposal I have worked on for
several years. We call it the ``10-20-30.'' The

[[Page H1706]]

purpose of the 10-20-30 plan is to target Federal funds to communities
that have experienced persistent poverty. Specifically, this proposal
targets 10 percent of funding to neglected communities where 20 percent
or more of the population has lived in poverty for 30 or more years.
The 10-20-30 plan was originally signed into law as a part of the
Recovery Act. It has proven to be successful in steering needed rural
development funds into neglected communities for water and sewage and
economic development projects. It's time to build on this success and
expand the 10-20-30 plan.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you.
I am also pleased that all of the Democratic substitutes reject the
austerity-for-working-families plan that the Republicans are proposing.
Democrats will honor our commitment to senior citizens and invest in a
brighter future. The Van Hollen budget will create jobs now, and that's
the tried and true way to achieve deficit reduction.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Today, we are stealing from the next generation--our kids and our
grandkids. We are making false promises that Medicare and Social
Security benefits will be there to take care of folks when we know that
Medicare is bankrupt in 8 to 12 years. It's time for Congress to do
something to help Americans and their families.
While House Republicans seek to bring taxes and spending back to
historically stable levels this country operated under for the past 60
years and seek to balance the budget, there is nothing balanced about
the Democrats' plan. We are spending more money today than we did last
year, and we are collecting more taxpayer dollars than ever before.
Instead of cutting spending, the Democrats' plan would add $4 trillion
to the debt and take in another $1.2 trillion out of people's pockets,
not to buy down our debt, but to spend even more.
Instead of raising taxes, the House Republican plan includes pro-
growth, comprehensive tax reform. Tax reform is critical to increasing
U.S. competitiveness abroad as well as attracting business here at
home. It will close loopholes and special interest deductions and
credits for personal and corporate income taxes and lower the rates for
everyone.
I am pleased House Republicans are the only people in this town with
the courage to balance the budget. It's time to return the economy to
an engine of growth and job creation and to increase opportunities for
all hardworking Americans. This is what the House Republican budget
will achieve, and this is what Americans deserve.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The way to save Medicare is to bring down costs
overall in the health care system, not give seniors a voucher that puts
all the risk on the senior, which is what the Republican approach does.
I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, a budget shows our
priorities for financial expenditures but our moral priorities as well.
There are many reasons to oppose the Ryan budget, but what it does to
Medicare and Medicaid are on the top of my list.
They would end Medicare as people have known it. Rather than have a
guaranteed benefit, they turn it into a voucher. There would be no
guarantee that people would be able to get the services they need and
get those benefits provided to them under this voucher. Every year,
that voucher would be capped, so they would have to buy a cheaper and
cheaper policy with fewer and fewer benefits.
For Medicaid, the Ryan budget cuts $810 billion, ending the coverage
for over 70 million Americans: 17 million are seniors or people with
disabilities, and 33 million are children, for whom we want to have at
least a chance of starting life in the best of health. They would make
this into a block grant, cutting $110 billion, shifting the cost on to
the States, on to the providers, on to the beneficiaries. They don't
hold down costs. They simply shift them.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Ryan budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to
simply say that I think that people know over here that we're not
proposing a voucher plan. The premium support is quite different, and
it's the only bipartisan solution to save and strengthen Medicare.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget
Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
Mr. ROKITA. I thank Chairman Ryan for his leadership as well as to
thank all of the members and staff of the Budget Committee.
We have a good product here. It balances. Balance is important
because, until you balance, you can't even begin to start paying off
this debt, and we do that. The budget that's on the floor right now
never balances. It might claim it does, but the math bears otherwise.

{time} 1630

I want to address the Medicaid reforms that we put in our budget,
because they were just attacked. We believe in balancing the budget. We
believe in balancing, not by raising taxes, but by cutting spending.
But you don't just have to cut to cut spending. You can reform.
You can reform these programs, Mr. Chair, so that they are around for
the generations to come. Medicaid, a program that by all accounts is
failing those whom it is intending to serve, needs reform. It leads to
poor outcomes for patients.
A 2010 study suggested that surgical patients on Medicaid were 13
percent more likely to die, Mr. Chairman, than those without health
insurance at all. That bears repeating. If you're a surgical patient on
Medicaid, you are 13 percent more likely to die. That needs reform.
It drives away doctors who want to serve the poor. On average,
doctors who participate in Medicaid earn 56 percent of what those in
the private sector do. It also is pushing our States closer and closer
to the brink of fiscal collapse. States on average now spend more on
Medicaid than on any other expense, including K-12 education, Mr.
Chairman. And the dramatic expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare will
only make these problems worse.
We have to address these failing programs. The States are doing it
already. In Rhode Island, with the help of a waiver from the Federal
regulations, they are able to take a cap in spending for 5 years and
put everyone in managed care successfully. In my home State of Indiana,
40,000 more people who really needed the care were put on without one
more dime of expense.
Mr. Chairman, reform is needed, reform cuts costs, and reform will
make sure these programs are around for generations to come. Please do
not support this budget. Support the Ryan plan.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana just made
the point that under the current Medicaid system States have lots of
flexibility, including Indiana, to help bring down costs. But when you
have a tight program, cutting another $820 billion is not a lifeline;
it's throwing them an anchor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds simply
to say that Indiana is being denied their waivers, so they're being
denied the flexibility they are asking for to run Medicaid as they see
fit to serve their populations. Point made.
I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs.
Lummis).
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the House majority
party for putting together a budget that takes a balanced approach. It
balances the interest of two very future vulnerable groups.
One is my age, because in 11 years I'm going to be on Medicare and
Medicare is going to be broke, completely insolvent, absolutely broke.
At the same time, earlier today, I met with some kids who were here
with the Close Up program. They were high school students full of hope.
In 11 years, they're going to be starting families, buying cars and
gasoline and

[[Page H1707]]

houses and insurance and raising kids; and they'll be at a financially
vulnerable age.
Now, the House Republican budget protects both of us. It makes
Medicare solvent for me when I am there and I need the money. And it
doesn't do it on the backs of those young high school students today
that will be 28-years-old when they need to be raising families and
saving for their children's college and their own retirements. It
doesn't with the premium support system, not a voucher system, a
premium support system, which is what I have as a Member of Congress,
where I get to choose from among government pre-approved insurance
programs that don't deny me for a preexisting condition. I pay part of
the premium and the government pays part of the premium. The healthy
and wealthy get less premium support, the unhealthy and unwealthy get
more.
It solves both parties. It's the balanced approach. I ask you to
reject the minority party's budget and support the House Republican
budget.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my privilege to yield 1
minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi), the very
distinguished Democratic leader, who just returned from the Vatican and
hopefully will bring some hope from the Pope, as I say.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him, Mr.
Chairman, for his tremendous, tremendous leadership and giving us an
opportunity in the House today to vote on a budget that is a reflection
of American values--values of work and jobs, promoting them, a value of
fairness, a value of advancing the success of America's families. I
thank him for giving us a budget--I think we can all be the judge--
where we say that a budget is a statement of our national values. What
is important to us as a Nation is a place where we allocate our
resources.
This budget is in stark absolute contrast to the Republican budget
that is on the floor today.
Contrast number one: jobs. The Republican bill, the Ryan Republican
budget, is a job killer. Nearly 2 million jobs lost right out of the
gate, and more lost after that; whereas the Van Hollen Democratic
substitute is a job creator. It invests in rebuilding the
infrastructure of America. It invests in innovation, energy, and
education. Speaking of infrastructure, the American Society of Civil
Engineers has given us a D in terms of the condition of the
infrastructure in our country. So the need is there. This budget
recognizes that need, but it also does so in a way that creates jobs in
a very innovative way.
It is in strong contrast when it comes to fairness, fairness as to
how we, again, establish our priorities to invest in education, rather
than continue to give tax breaks, loopholes that are unnecessary,
unworthy of a values budget that the Republican budget continues.
And in terms of our seniors, the contrast could not be greater. The
Ryan budget, in 10 years there will be no Medicare guarantee--flat out,
absolutely. There will be no Medicare guarantee.
In the meantime--in the meantime--the Ryan budget takes the resources
that we have in the health care reform bill, repeals the bill, and
takes the money and runs to give it to his priorities, rather than
strengthening Medicare and keeping it strong for a longer period of
time, keeping the benefits that are in the Affordable Care Act,
prevention and wellness services right from the start, closing the
prescription drug doughnut hole, and the list goes on.
I listened intently to the gentlelady speak about our high school 18-
year-old seniors and where they'll be when they're 28 years old. And
since young people are always used as sort of a point of discussion,
and rightfully so--we're here to provide for their future--I think it's
important to listen to what they have to say.
And the young people that have passed through the Capitol--as you
know, many do--I frequently invite them to sit down and tell me what
they would like us to say at the table of the discussion of the
budget--especially when it comes to them--because we always say we
cannot heap mountains of debt on the next generation. I fully agree.
That is why I support the Van Hollen budget.
These young people say, We want a strong education system, a strong
public education system. We need student loans that are affordable. We
need Pell Grants. We need our families to be able to focus on us, and
so we need Medicare and Medicaid so that our grandparents' health needs
are met.
For a long time to come, they hope, loving their grandparents. But
these young people want to be helpful in solving the budget crisis.
That's what they have told us: We want to do our share.
The initiative that brings more money to the Federal Treasury is
education--education, early childhood, K-12, higher education, post-
grad, all the rest of that lifetime learning.

{time} 1640

Nothing brings more money to the Treasury than educating the American
people, and that is why investing in education, creating jobs, that
brings revenue. It's hard to see why we would put forth a budget that
stunts the growth of jobs, the growth of our economy with jobs and our
investments in education.
On the subject of education, tens of billions of dollars are struck
in the Ryan Republican anti-job bill, in that job-killer bill, tens of
billions of dollars. They say, it's better to give a tax break to a
special interest than to invest in the education of our children.
Would that be a statement of your national values if you were writing
a budget for our country? I don't think so. It certainly was not a
statement of the values of the young people who have come through here
saying how they would help solve the budget deficit challenge we face.
We all know the deficit must be reduced. We've known it for a long
time. We've recognized it for a long time. President Clinton recognized
it and took us on a path of soundness.
It was totally reversed in the Bush years when our Republican
colleagues didn't say a word. They said, no problem; it's the
appropriate percentage of GDP. No problem with the deficit. They never
complained about it.
But now, with their initiatives, the Ryan Republican job-killer
budget is making matters worse in terms of reducing the deficit because
it deprives our economy of the very initiatives that would create
growth, the education of our people, lifetime learning for the American
people.
Investments in education, as I said, nothing brings more money.
Investments in jobs, whether it's infrastructure, energy, innovation--
absent in the Ryan Republican job-killer budget.
Medicare, so important to the stability of America's working
families, the provisions in the Affordable Care Act that affect
Medicare have already demonstrated that it is halting the rapid
increase in the cost of health care spending, and so that is what has
enabled the CBO to say, with more promise, that we can use a different
baseline to reduce the deficit, and that has been used in the
Republican budget.
So I urge my colleagues to think about the kitchen tables of people
in our country. We sit at a table here and have these discussions.
What's really important is how the decisions we make here, what we
think, and how that relates to the challenges they face, the education
of their children, are they going to be able to keep their home, keep
their job, keep their pension, all of this heaped one on top of another
of concerns.
And the economic and health security of our seniors not only has an
impact on them, the seniors, but on their families. And if we're going
to be true to those young people, those 18-year olds, we must recognize
how important their education is, but also, how important caring for
their grandparents is to the economic success of their entire family.
I'll end where I began. The most important part of all of this is
this issue of jobs, jobs, jobs, and the fairness in our budget to
promote jobs and to reduce the deficit for the success of America's
families.
The choice is clear: Job-killer Ryan Republican budget bill, job-
creator Van Hollen substitute bill. I urge my colleagues to support the
Van Hollen bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'm just not going to agree with that one, Mr.
Chairman. I'll yield myself 30 seconds.
The minority leader says she's concerned about the debt that is
befalling the next generation. I'm glad to hear

[[Page H1708]]

that. Doing nothing, the debt will go up by 56 percent if we just do
nothing.
If this budget passes, the Democratic substitute, it will go up by 54
percent. That's basically doing nothing as well.
Jobs: the CBO statistic the gentleman talks about, it's not even an
estimate of this budget, it's the sequester.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself another 10 seconds.
But the Stanford economist who did look at this Republican budget
says that we will create 500,000 jobs in the first year and 1.7 million
each and every year by the end of this budget window. Faster economic
growth, more jobs, getting the government to live within its means,
balancing the budget.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a member of the Budget Committee.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, today we're not talking about balancing
a budget for the sake of balancing a budget. The goal is not to just
check a box. What we're discussing today is about more than just
this procedure of a budget. We're debating the kind of future that
we're going to leave our kids.

Today, the choice is clear: if Congress does not get spending under
control, our Nation faces a debt crisis that will only make our
financial situation worse. House Republicans did recognize this and the
urgency of the hour, and we acted.
I'm proud to have worked with my colleagues on the Budget Committee
to produce a budget that does make responsible reforms, promotes
economic growth and job creation. The House Republican budget does
balance in 10 years and gets our Nation back on track.
The Democrats' budget doesn't balance at all within CBO's budget
window, and it includes a $1.2 trillion increase in taxes. Our budget
reforms the Tax Code and lowers taxes for everyone.
Hardworking Hoosier families sit around their kitchen tables today,
tonight, this evening, and make tough choices to keep their budgets.
Our households and businesses work hard to live within their means, and
the Federal Government should do the same.
The basic principle of keeping budgets is important to all American
families. When I'm home in the Second District in the State of Indiana
and I'm in the grocery store on Saturday mornings, there are moms that
come up to me and they're worried about the rising cost of eggs.
They're talking about the price of a gallon of milk.
They're concerned about whether their kids will have a future. Will
they really go to college? Will there be jobs for them when they come
out of college? Will there be jobs for them if they don't go to
college? What happens when they do enter the workforce?
The truth is this: the uncertainty in Washington is what burdens our
families at home. It's time for us in Washington to be accountable and
pass a responsible budget.
According to Stanford University, in addition to what the chairman
mentioned, their economists said that this Republican budget would
result in $1,500 more for each household in 2014 and $4,000 more for
each household by 2024.
Our budget includes commonsense policies that will spur investments
and job creation and roll back the regulations that hurt businesses and
stifle economic growth.
History will be our judge by the future that we leave to our
children. If we refuse to make responsible, serious decisions about
this budget, we'll jeopardize the American Dream for future
generations. We have to ensure that our children have the same, if not
better, opportunities to succeed than we have.
I urge my colleagues to make a responsible decision, oppose this
amendment, and support the House Republican budget.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I support the Van Hollen budget because it recognizes
that reducing our deficit is important, and that fiscal restraint,
spending cuts, more revenues in a balanced way, is the way to do that.
But I also support it because it chooses American economic growth over
the European-style austerity.
Prior to 1965, in this country, when you got old and retired, you
moved in with your kids and hoped you didn't get sick. And only the
very lucky or the very wealthy got to go to college.
In 1965, two things changed. We adopted Medicare that said that
retired people had health security, and we adopted the Higher Education
Act that said that sons and daughters of truckdrivers and teachers
could get a college education.
What happened?
Prior to 1965, on a per capita basis, our economy grew by $323 per
person per year. After 1965, our economy grew by $523 per person per
year. Investing in Medicare, investing in education yields growth.
The Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantees and will severely
raise the cost of going to college for American families. Vote ``yes''
on the Van Hollen plan.

{time} 1650

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Little do some know that ObamaCare ended
Medicare as we know it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished senior member of
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Van Hollen recently pointed out that Democrats and
Republicans both want to get rid of a range of tax loopholes but
Democrats want to spend that money and Republicans want to lower the
overall burden. That difference is very important.
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.
That's the principle reason why we're losing American jobs to nations
with much lower taxes. As economist Arthur Laffer has warned, there's
nothing more portable in this world than money.
This policy might fit the left's ``eat the rich'' crusade, but the
jobs it destroys are eating our middle class alive. We are sacrificing
permanent, upwardly mobile, productive private sector jobs for
makeshift subsidized ones that disappear the moment the money runs out.
That is precisely the difference between FedEx and the post office or
between Apple and Solyndra. And that's all the difference in the world.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire again how much time remains?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The fundamental choice here is whether we want a budget like the
Democratic budget that focuses on economic growth and strengthening the
middle class or whether you want to take a budget like the Republican
budget that imposes European-style austerity by more than doubling the
size of the sequester on essential investments to help the economy
grow. Investment in our infrastructure, when we know we have 15 percent
unemployment in the construction industry. Investment in our kids'
education, not doubling the student loan interest rate in July, as the
Republican budget would do. Investment in science and research. If we
don't make those investments, our global competitors are going to eat
our lunch.
And yes, we do ask the very wealthy to get rid of some of their tax
breaks and loopholes to help contribute to the reduction of the deficit
so that we can reduce the deficit in a balanced way that calls for
shared responsibility. And no, we do not ask middle-income families to
pay higher taxes in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. And
yes, we get the deficit down in a steady way. We balance it in the same
year the Republican bill balanced last year, and we don't pretend that
we're going to balance and get rid of ObamaCare at the same time.
That's fake balance, not real balance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this green graph shows you the
revenues we've historically had in America. The blue line shows you the

[[Page H1709]]

tax increases our friends are hoping to achieve, some of which have
already occurred. The red line shows you where spending is going. We
have a spending problem. But the time my kids are my age, the
government will be taking twice as much money to spend on the Federal
Government.
Austerity is what you do when you have a debt crisis. You raise taxes
and you cut spending on seniors to try and please the bond markets to
stop the panic. That's the path we're on. What we're trying to do is
prevent austerity.
What do we propose? Let's grow the economy. Let's reform the tax
system. Let's stop picking winners and losers through loopholes, lower
tax rates for everybody--families and businesses--to create jobs and
economic growth. Let's open up the resources we have in this country--
oil, coal, and gas--so we can bring down gas prices, increase
paychecks, create jobs, help manufacturing.
We have a safety net that isn't working. We have the highest poverty
rates in a generation. There are 46 million people in poverty. We need
to fix this safety net so it works to get people back on their feet
again. We need to save Medicare so that it's not bankrupt--because it
is on a path to bankruptcy--so that current seniors can rest in comfort
knowing it's not going to be taken away from them, so that the
ObamaCare rationing board won't take it from them, and so that those of
us who are younger can plan for it.
We need to balance the budget. Balancing the budget is necessary for
a healthy economy, for creating jobs, and for giving our kids a debt-
free Nation. That's why we do this. Their budget, despite what they
say, never, ever balances. The budget the Senate is considering today
never, ever balances.
The budget that they're talking about here, the budget that they're
passing in the Senate, it actually has a net spending increase. And
don't forget the fact that taxes just went up by $1.6 trillion. What do
they want to do? Throw another trillion on top. Guess what? They may
say it's for the rich. They may say it's for the loophole. Watch out,
middle class. The tax man is coming to you. Because that's exactly what
all these deficits and all these tax increases are pointing at--taking
more out of the paychecks of hardworking families. We're going to
balance the budget and stop that from happening. That's why I urge a
defeat of the Van Hollen substitute and passage of the base bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I support the Democratic budget.
It is a responsible roadmap that invests in our future and approaches
deficit reduction in a balanced way. It accomplishes this without
singling out domestic energy production with unfair tax provisions.
I cannot support the Republican budget. It cuts taxes for the wealthy
and pays for it by raising taxes on middle income earners and betraying
our commitment to our seniors. It is misguided and does not reflect the
values Americans hold dear.
The Republican budget slashes Medicaid, which provides necessary care
to our nation's most vulnerable, especially low-income seniors and
children. Denying them the care they need does not make the costs go
away, it just shifts the burden on to doctors, hospitals, non-profits,
and others.
The Majority budget repeats the same tired and failed tactic of
repealing the Affordable Care Act. Repeal increases the deficit and
means Seniors will pay more for prescription drugs, receive less
preventive care, and bring back the days of abusive insurance companies
capping coverage and denying coverage to those with pre-existing
conditions.
Alternatively, the Democratic budget makes good on the commitments we
have made to our Seniors. It makes sure that the Affordable Care Act is
fully implemented and that the benefits are maximized to protect
patients and begin to bring down the cost of healthcare. This budget
also provides the necessary funding for medical research, which will
spur the innovations of the future that end disease and improve
outcomes.
Additionally, I appreciate the Ranking Member for making education a
top priority in this budget. Investing in education is key to growing
our economy, strengthening the middle class, allowing for upward
mobility and ensuring our children and grandchildren have brighter
futures than previous generations. Robust early education programs,
jobs initiatives and financial aid programs to make college more
affordable invest in our future and build a stronger America in the
long-term. Making it harder for out-of-work Americans to get job
training or for families to access quality early learning programs
undermines the strength of our workforce and diminishes our ability to
compete in the global economy.
Spending on domestic programs is already on track to be at the lowest
level as a percentage of the economy since the 1960s, but the Ryan
budget would make even deeper cuts. It imposes spending caps on non-
defense programs for two additional years at a level that is $700
billion below the level set by the Sequester. It slashes billions of
dollars in mandatory funding for Pell Grants and allows interest rates
on student loans to double this summer at a time when student loan debt
is nearing $1 trillion and is the only type of household debt that
continued to rise through the Great Recession. We should be working to
help Americans who seek to better their livelihood through higher
education rather than allowing them to be crushed by debt or denied
access due to skyrocketing costs.
Under the Ryan budget, students will face larger class sizes, more
debt, fewer afterschool programs, and less support for special needs.
Robust funding for educational investments is critical to growing our
economy. Cutting these programs shortchanges our future and threatens
the ability of our children to pursue the American Dream.
Finally, I want to thank our Ranking Member on the House Budget
Committee and Democratic Leadership for not including provisions in
this budget that would unfairly single-out and punish our domestic
energy industry by repealing tax provisions for them that are afforded
to any business operating in our country. The oil and natural gas
industry is one of the largest employers in our country, supporting
more than 9.2 million jobs. In fact, this industry delivers $86 million
a day to the federal government in revenue. Any changes to these tax
incentives should be addressed in the context of comprehensive tax
reform and not a budget.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, let me thank our Ranking Member,
Congressman Van Hollen.
As a Member of the Budget Committee, I rise in strong support of the
Democratic Alternative Budget to the disastrous Republican Budget.
The Democratic budget will close special interest tax loopholes to
raise the critical revenue we need to create 1.2 million new jobs, and
make key investments in education, health care and clean energy.
Mr. Chair, the Democratic Alternative not only fully funds the SNAP
program, it includes language that calls for the creation of a National
Strategy on Poverty.
Democrats understand that fully supporting our safety net programs,
like Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and Social Security, will reduce
poverty, grow the middle class, and promote job creation and economic
growth.
Finally, the Democratic Budget eliminates off budget spending in the
Oversees Contingency Operations slush fund to stop our cycle of
perpetual wars and bring our troops home safely.
The Democratic Budget offers a balanced alternative to the failed
economic and fiscal policies of the Republican majority.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Budget.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165,
noes 253, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 87]

AYES--165

Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu

[[Page H1710]]

Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--253

Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--13

Aderholt
Amodei
Engel
Fortenberry
Grimm
Hinojosa
Langevin
Lipinski
Meng
Miller, George
Schock
Smith (NJ)
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1718

Messrs. COFFMAN and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Joyce) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 25) establishing the budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2015 through 2023, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________