[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H1909-H2021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 163 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. 27.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1230


                     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. 27) establishing the budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025, with 
Mr. Collins of Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
March 24, 2015, general debate on the congressional budget had expired.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) each will control 30 minutes on the 
subject of economic goals and policies.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, under the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 
1978, the Joint Economic Committee provides analysis and 
recommendations about the goals and policies set forth in the economic 
report of the President, and this is to assist the House in its 
consideration of the budget resolution.
  During the next hour, the members of the Joint Economic Committee 
will answer two questions: Why has this economic recovery been so weak 
when compared with past recoveries? And secondly, how would a gradual 
reduction of Federal spending, relative to the size of America's 
economy, as envisioned in the House Republican budget resolution, how 
would this help hard-working Americans by accelerating economic growth, 
job creation, and real wage increases?
  Regrettably, our economy remains stuck in second gear. Last year, 
real GDP--in other words, apples-to-apples economy--grew by a mere 2.37 
percent. That is an imperceptible increase over the average annual 
growth rate of 2.33 percent during the entire recovery.
  Although conditions have improved, the Obama recovery remains the 
weakest, or near the bottom, in terms of every major measurement of 
economic performance, compared with other recoveries over the past half 
century.
  The Joint Economic Committee describes the difference in economic 
performance in this recovery and with the average of other recoveries 
since 1960 as the ``growth gap''--and this growth gap is real.
  Since the recession ended, the economy has grown by 13.5 percent, 
compared with the average growth of 24.1 percent during other 
recoveries. This growth gap means our economy is currently missing $1.5 
trillion, a hole comparable in size to the economy of Australia or 
Mexico or Spain.
  Since the recession ended, private sector payrolls--that is, Main 
Street jobs--increased by 10 percent, but over the average of other 
recoveries, it was more than 15 percent. Thus, from the end of the 
recession, the growth gap in Main Street jobs is a staggering 5.5 
million jobs. America is missing 5.5 million jobs, enough to hire 
everyone looking for work in 45 States.
  Not surprisingly, hard-working American families have felt the 
adverse effects of slow growth and lagging job creation in their 
pocketbook. Since the recession ended, real after-tax income per person 
has increased by a total of merely 7 percent--7.1 percent, to be exact. 
In other recoveries, it was over 15 percent. Thus, the growth gap in 
real after-tax income equates to nearly $3,000 per person. It is 
$2,915. So what that means for a family of four in America is that they 
are missing $11,000 a year from their family budget.
  Ironically, for a President that obsesses about income inequality and 
promotes ``middle class economics,'' the White House has presided over 
a disappointing recovery that has bestowed most of its benefits to the 
wealthy and the well-connected. While families and businesses on Main 
Street continue to suffer from a very disappointing recovery, the S&P 
Total Return Index, adjusted for inflation--meaning Wall Street--has 
increased by 125.4 percent since the end of the recession. So Wall 
Street is roaring; Main Street and hard-working taxpayers are 
suffering.
  Closing the growth gap in the economy and jobs and paychecks will be 
very hard for this President to achieve with his current slow-growth 
policies.
  While the economy has improved month after month, in truth, it has 
gone so slow. It is like bragging that your car has run for 63 straight 
months, but it only is running at 5 miles an hour. Well, that is what 
our economy is doing. And to catch up from these slow-growth policies, 
we need to break even with the average performance of other recoveries. 
By the time President Obama leaves the White House:
  Our economy will have to grow at an annual rate of 7.4 percent in 
each of the next eight quarters. This is triple the growth rate in the 
Obama recovery.
  Private sector jobs--Main Street jobs, in effect--would have to 
generate 403,000 jobs every month for the next 22 months. So this is 
well above the average of the disappointing Obama recovery of 285,000 
jobs, especially in the last 6 months.
  Real after-tax income for every person in America--that is, what 
their real disposable income is--would have to grow at an annual rate 
of 6.3 percent through the rest of President Obama's term. This is more 
than four times faster than what it has been doing during the Obama 
recovery.
  So why has our economy been so weak? Why has the Obama recovery been 
nearly dead last in all of these areas?
  First, Federal spending is out of control.
  Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and 
over again yet expecting different results. Is this not the perfect 
description of President Obama's budget? His budget reflects his 
dogmatic commitment to failed Keynesian economic policies--
notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that we are mired in the 
worst economic recovery of the last 50 years, creating this large and 
persistent growth gap. From the failed stimulus through ObamaCare to 
demands for

[[Page H1910]]

more Federal infrastructure projects, President Obama's thirst for new 
spending has never slackened.
  Like a basketball team that cannot make halftime adjustments, this 
President refuses to learn from his failures. His budget would increase 
Federal spending next year by another $74 billion and by another $300-
plus billion over the next 5 years. This, as this President is taking 
more in tax dollars from every American than almost at any time in 
history.
  We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. If you 
look at this chart, you can see where per person revenue in America 
through the Federal Government nearly the highest it has been, frankly, 
in the last 30 to 40 years. Fortunately, a Republican House has 
successfully applied the brakes to this spending, preventing a far 
worse economic mess.

  Second, our tax system is broken.
  For businesses, America has the highest corporate income tax rate 
among developed countries. And we are the only one in our global 
competitors with a system that taxes you here, taxes you abroad, and 
punishes you if you bring your profits back to invest in America. This 
puts American companies and the workers at a huge disadvantage with 
foreign competitors.
  For individuals here in America, our income tax system is so complex 
that 90 percent of taxpayers need to use a paid preparer or tax 
software, and families can't possibly keep up with the 4,000 changes in 
the tax law that occurred over the last decade. That is one new tax 
change every day of the year.
  And third, President Obama has greatly expanded the regulatory 
burden--red tape--on American businesses and families during and after 
a severe recession. For example, the Affordable Care Act has imposed 
enormous new burdens on America's families, on our local businesses and 
health care providers.
  Mr. Chairman, 4.5 years after enactment of financial regulations, 
regulators still haven't completed writing more than 40 percent of the 
new rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act; meanwhile, our local 
bankers and local businesses have not been able to finance growth in 
their communities as a result of these regulations.
  President Obama has slow-walked the development of oil and natural 
gas on Federal lands and waters and stubbornly vetoed the job-creating 
Keystone XL pipeline.
  Most recently, President Obama's Federal Communications Commission 
went back in time and imposed a 1930s-style regulation designed to 
control the telephone monopoly and now applied to the highly 
competitive Internet.
  Fourth, President Obama greatly expanded social welfare benefits 
during and after the severe recession. During the 1960s, Democratic 
Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson knew that America's economy 
needed to be strong in order to afford the Medicare, Medicaid, and food 
stamp programs they favored. Both Presidents insisted that Congress 
enact an investment tax credit, an across-the-board reduction in income 
tax rates, to put our economy into high gear before enacting new 
entitlement programs.
  Instead, President Obama did the opposite. He rammed ObamaCare 
through in a divided and controversial late-night maneuver, rammed 
through a large expansion of food stamps, extended unemployment 
benefits through a Democrat-controlled Congress before our economy had 
fully recovered. His entitlement expansions reduced the labor force 
participation. In other words, it has held back those who want to be in 
the workforce.
  According to University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan, 
ObamaCare alone will, by 2017, cause roughly a 3 percent reduction in 
weekly employment, 3 percent fewer total hours worked, and a 2 percent 
reduction in labor income--so less jobs, less hours worked, less in 
your paycheck.
  Taken together, President Obama's economic policies have increased 
the cost of doing business now and heightened uncertainty about their 
future. This is the opposite of what economically successful Presidents 
such as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did.
  The Republican budget recognizes the Obama recovery is disappointing 
for Republicans, for Democrats, for Independents, for college 
graduates, for middle class, hard-working Americans. The Republican 
budget, which is a balanced budget for a stronger America, will give us 
a healthier economy.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my friends across the aisle claimed that this recovery 
is weaker than ``average'' ones. However, economic research reveals 
that this is terribly misleading because financial crises like the one 
that caused the Great Recession have deeper, more damaging, and longer 
lasting effects. In addition, the Great Recession was caused by a 
bursting of a housing bubble, limiting housing's ability to contribute 
to recovery as it typically had after previous recessions.
  The recovery from the Great Recession is also different because 
monetary policy's ability to support the economy was limited by hitting 
the zero lower bound--interest rates simply could not go any lower.
  There have been a number of economic downturns since the founding of 
our Nation--some mild, some deep and strong.
  Last week, at a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee with Chairman 
Jason Furman of the Council of Economic Advisers, I asked him how would 
he characterize the 2008 financial meltdown under former President 
George W. Bush. I asked him: How does the 2008 Bush recession rate?
  He said that the economic blows in this recession were five times 
greater than the Great Recession. And he also said, when I asked him to 
put it into laymen's terms--was it a common cold? pneumonia? a heart 
attack? the flu?--he said that the Bush recession was especially deep 
and damaging, the worst since the Great Depression.
  And I asked him: Was it a common cold?
  He said: No. It was a heart attack.
  The reality is that when you compare our record to other countries 
that are recovering from the Great Recession, you can see in this chart 
that the United States economy has expanded at a significantly faster 
rate than other leading, advanced economies in the world. So when he 
says we are slow, we are certainly a lot faster than the rest of the 
world.
  Look at this. Here is the United States. Here is the European Union. 
Here is Japan. Here is the United Kingdom. The United States has 
recovered stronger and faster than the other world economies.
  So when my colleagues across the aisle say that the Obama recovery 
pales in comparison to average ones, just remember that the comparison 
is an absolutely ridiculous one.
  The recession was an economic heart attack, a financial calamity, and 
we should thank President Obama that we are now recovering, and 
recovering faster than like economies in the world.
  A budget is about planning for the future. That planning must be 
based on reality and must be grounded in our recent experience. The 
Republican budget is a misleading, dishonest budget which relies on 
accounting gimmicks and $1 trillion in unspecified cuts.

                              {time}  1245

  It rejects lessons we should have already learned. In 2008 and 2009, 
this country faced the greatest economic downturn since the Great 
Depression. The shocks that hit the U.S. economy in the fall of 2008 
were at least as large as those that caused the Great Depression. The 
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Jason Furman, told the 
Joint Economic Committee last week that during the Great Recession, 
household wealth fell by at least five times the decline seen in 1929. 
More than $16 trillion in wealth evaporated in American families, 
causing great pain and suffering.
  Today, some 6\1/2\ years later, the economy is a very different 
place. The U.S. economy has expanded at a faster pace than nearly all 
other advanced economies. The GDP has grown in 20 of the past 22 
quarters, and we have had a record--a record--60 straight months of 
private sector job growth. This didn't just happen. It happened because 
of the unprecedented response from the Federal Reserve and the bold 
actions taken by the Democratic Congress and President Obama.

[[Page H1911]]

  The Recovery Act stimulated growth and invested in our future, 
investing in infrastructure, education, research, and job training. 
Those are things we don't see in the Republican budget. We don't see 
those investments.
  The Recovery Act cut taxes for middle class families, increased tax 
credits for the working poor, and directed Federal funds to States and 
cities so that they could keep police officers on the beat, firemen on 
the job, and teachers in the classroom. It invested $50 billion in 
transportation infrastructure. We don't see any of that in the 
Republican budget. We don't even see cutting tax loopholes for special 
interests. We don't see any of that. We just see cutting tax support 
for the middle class and the working Americans.
  Other actions taken by Congress included extensions of unemployment 
insurance and COBRA subsidies, a payroll tax credit for hiring 
unemployed workers, a payroll tax cut for all workers, and help for 
small businesses. It stopped an economic disaster and got our economy 
moving again.
  Mr. Chairman, this chart shows this. Numbers do not lie. The deep, 
dark red valley covered Republican policies that are in this budget. 
When President Obama came to office, we slowly worked our way up and 
have continued to add millions of jobs for working Americans. Today, 
the unemployment rate is 5.5 percent, its lowest level in almost 7 
years. We have had 12 straight months of private sector job gains 
exceeding 200,000 jobs, something that has not happened since 1977. The 
auto industry is thriving. Remember the Republicans wanted to abolish 
the auto industry? But we invested in restructuring, and 5 years later 
the industry has added more than 500,000 jobs, and we are exporting 
American cars at the highest level.
  The economy is strong and getting stronger. Now is the time to build 
on this progress. Now is the time to ensure that the economic recovery 
reaches every American. Now is the time to invest in our future by 
funding infrastructure, education, workforce training, and scientific 
research. But that is not what the Republican budget does. The 
Republican budget slashes spending on things that would help continue 
our forward blue high rise of creating more jobs, and it uses a slush 
fund and unspecified cuts to make it appear that it all adds up.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget offered would get us off the 
path--this beautiful path of success--taking us back in the direction 
of the Bush recession. It represents an abrupt U-turn, one that we 
cannot afford. It would risk the recent economic progress and harm 
working families struggling to get ahead.
  So let's support the Democratic budget and the progress that we are 
making in creating jobs and improving the quality of life of Americans 
and the security of our country. Let's not turn around to the old, 
tired Republican policies that gave us that dark, deep recession and 
that red, dark valley.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out this was a serious recession. It was 
not the most serious and severe since the Great Depression. The 
recession in 1981 and the November of 1982 recession reached a higher 
unemployment rate, 10.8 percent greater than this recession. And that 
was settled, frankly, when interest rates reached over 20 percent.
  The truth is there have been jobs added for 60 straight months. You 
ought to take that graph and double it in job growth, there you would 
get just the average economic recovery. We continue to struggle as a 
country, and we shouldn't settle for this second-rate economic 
recovery.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a new member of the Joint Economic Committee. 
He is someone who has had longstanding experience in Arizona managing 
money, understanding State finances, and handling the numbers that our 
economy, frankly, is based on.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. For my friend from Texas, thank you. It is actually a 
joy being on this committee. It is fascinating the access to data. It 
is also fascinating how the data sort of gets, as you have already 
heard here in the first few minutes, sort of politicized by some of us 
almost to the edge of fantasy.
  Remember, if we step back to 2011, if we look at the President's own 
economic graphs, we were going to see economic GDP expansion 
approaching 5 percent of GDP. The indicators we were just getting this 
last week, it is this coming quarter, the quarter we are in right now, 
we may be about to see GDP of about 1.2 percent.
  At some point, holding up a board, it says look at the jobs, and then 
looking at the actual math, reality should hit home.
  Here is the President's own economic report. If you start to look at 
the numbers in here, if someone will actually break it open and 
actually read it, look at the numbers in here of workforce 
participation, how many of our brothers and sisters out there in the 
workforce are actually in the job market? There is something horribly, 
horribly wrong out there.

  So why do the Republicans so focus, so fixate on economic growth? It 
is the reality of what is about to happen in this country. In 4\1/2\ 
years--so right now we are discussing a $3.8 trillion budget. In 4\1/2\ 
years, we are expecting $1 trillion more in spending. Where is that 
growth? Where is that money coming from?
  Look at this slide. We are going to try to put up some slides that 
just show you how quickly mandatory spending is consuming everything in 
its path, and if we do not have a phenomenal economic growth, we are 
not going to be able to keep our promises.
  For right now, here is where we are today. We are basically, right 
now, only 31 percent of the budget we ultimately get to vote on. The 
vast majority of our budget is in what we call mandatory spending: 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, veterans' 
benefits, and the new ObamaCare health care law.
  Well, what happens over just the next 4\1/2\ years? How quickly does 
this mandatory spending begin to consume everything else in its path? 
Well, think about this. Just a couple years ago in the 2013 budget, we 
were projecting that it was going to take all the way out to the end of 
2023 before we hit this split where only 24 percent were things we get 
to vote on and 76 percent--76 percent--of the spending was going to be 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, interest on the debt, veterans' 
benefits, and the new health care law.
  Well, guess what is happening because of the Democrats' policy on 
economic growth, this President's policy on economic growth. So how 
quickly do we now hit where 76 percent of our money is going into 
mandatory? It is not 2023. It is in 4\1/2\ years.
  Now, yes, when we track what is happening, particularly in Medicare 
and Medicaid spending, it is tracking faster than we expected. And, 
yes, we have had discipline in this body on dealing with what we are 
allowed to have discipline on because of the relationships having a 
split Congress and being disciplined in discretionary spending.
  But understand, if we do not do those things that are necessary to 
dramatically grow this economy--and it is more than just talking about 
fantasies within this economic profile. It is regulatory, it is tax 
systems, and it is trade. And yet simple things--and this one is rather 
personal to me, and the ranking member was actually somewhat helpful on 
this--things like crowdfunding, little things that are simple, 
disappear in the bureaucracy for years after we even have bipartisan 
legislation.
  What is it with this White House, with the Democrat Party's fear of 
those things that create economic expansion? Why does it always have to 
be some sort of massive, collectivist dogma to drive economic growth 
instead of letting the markets go? Understand, this is important 
because we are trying to help sell the story of why do we care so much 
about this economic growth. When you look at what is about to happen in 
net interest, look at how fast this grows.
  I am going to actually move to the next slide just so you have a 
comparison. I want you to think about this. In just a few years, Mr. 
Chairman, the interest--and this is using nominal interest rates. If we 
have a spike, then it gets really bad really fast. But in just a few 
years, we are going to be spending as much money in this body on 
interest as we do for all of defense.

[[Page H1912]]

  Well, at that point, if you care about the entitlements, if that is 
where you are ideologically, you care about protecting the country, you 
care about medical research, you care about these things, then the 
economic growth is everything. We can't grow ourselves out of this debt 
and deficit, but we can sure do some great good.
  I beg my brothers on both sides of the aisle and my sisters, too, you 
need to step away a bit from some of the crazy dogma, pull back on some 
of the crazy regulations, the arrogance of thinking Washington knows 
everything, and let America begin to grow, allow it to begin to 
prosper. That is what the Republican budget is doing. It is dealing 
with the reality of the math we have been given by this President's 
policies and trying to drive it to a progrowth future with lots of 
options.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, in response to my 
good friends on the other side of the aisle, numbers don't lie. These 
numbers were compiled by the bipartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics and 
updated in early March. It clearly shows that our economy was shedding 
800,000 jobs a month before President Obama took office. And then 
because of his policies, it has continued to grow. Mr. Chairman, 12 
million private sector jobs were added in the past 60 months--the 
longest of streak on record of job growth--and 288,000 private sector 
jobs added in February.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the great 
State of Maryland (Mr. Delaney), an outstanding member of our 
committee.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from New York, for yielding me time to talk about my 
colleagues', the Republicans', budget, which is something I oppose.
  I oppose it for a number of policy reasons, but I thought I would 
spend my time today talking about what I view is a more fundamental, 
analytical flaw in the budget, and that relates to the overall goal of 
the budget. Because if you have the wrong goal, you often make a series 
of bad decisions to support that goal. So I think it is important that 
we talk about what the goal of the budget is and what the goal of the 
budget should be.
  The goal of the Republican budget is to have zero deficits within 10 
years. In my opinion, that is the goal because it sounds good. We have 
all heard the line that we should not spend more money than we take in.

                              {time}  1300

  That sounds really good, but it ignores to many extents the basic 
math of budgets.
  It is also an unrealistic goal, and it is also an unnecessary goal. 
And as a result of pursuing an unrealistic and unnecessary goal, a 
series of very bad decisions are embedded in the budget, which is why I 
want to talk about the goal.
  It is an unrealistic goal when you look at the condition of the 
Federal budget at this moment in time. After several decades of this 
Congress and several administrations ignoring, in many ways, the fiscal 
responsibility of this great country and allowing our debt to become 
such a high percentage of our economy, we put ourselves in a position 
where we have had very significant deficits and the debt levels are 
such that we have very limited financial flexibility as a country, and 
if interest rates were to go up, it would increasingly consume a very 
large percentage of our budget. That is the problem and that is the 
situation we find ourselves in.
  In addition, Mr. Chair, we are entering a phase where the demographic 
trends in the country and the aging on a relative basis of the 
population are putting tremendous pressure on the resources of the 
Federal Government.
  So this is a very, very challenging time to take a budget that has 
had very significant deficits and try to bring them to zero within 10 
years. That is why it is unrealistic.
  It is also unnecessary because the most important metric in the 
financial health of the United States of America is our debt as a 
percentage of our economy.
  If we want to lower our debt as a percentage of our economy, what we 
have to do is have a budget where our deficits, expressed as a 
percentage of our economy, are consistently lower than economic growth. 
So we should be targeting deficits of 1 to 2 percent with a view that 
the minimum baseline economic growth of this country will be 2 to 3 
percent, and definitionally over time that will take the debt of the 
country as a percentage of the country down. It will give us more 
financial flexibility in the future and position us so that when 
interest rates rise, which they will, it will consume a much smaller 
percentage of our budget. That should be the goal.
  But because we have this unrealistic and unnecessary goal of getting 
deficits to zero within 10 years, my Republican colleagues are forced 
to overcorrect in the budget to achieve that goal.
  There are two fundamental ways to overcorrect in a budget. You either 
raise taxes very high to get revenues to get it to zero, or you cut 
investments very significantly.
  Now, my Republican colleagues don't choose to raise taxes. In fact, 
what they choose to do is to cut taxes, which makes an already 
unrealistic goal more unrealistic. So the only thing that is left, the 
only thing that is left to bring this budget to zero within 10 years is 
massive, massive reductions in the investments we are making in our 
future and in our Nation, which, to me, is a very odd decision in light 
of the facts that are in front of us, and the facts that are in front 
of us are very clear. We are in a global and very competitive economy, 
and we haven't made the investments, particularly in things like 
infrastructure, to position this country to compete as successfully as 
it should in a world that is increasingly interconnected.
  Also, we have to make investments in our children, Mr. Chair. We are 
in a knowledge-based economy. And to make sure that our kids are 
capable of being employed and having a rising standard of living across 
their lives, we have to invest in their future.
  So to achieve this unrealistic goal, my Republican colleagues make 
very significant, very, very significant cuts to these critical 
investments, which you could argue it has never been more important to 
do that. In fact, they bring many of these levels down to half of what 
they have been historically--again, and importantly, expressed as a 
percentage of our economy because it is irrelevant to talk about 
absolute numbers. The only numbers that should be talked about is the 
budget in terms of a percentage of our economy.
  That is why I view this budget as so troubling and misguided. Mr. 
Chair, I spent my whole career prior to coming to Congress running 
publicly traded companies that I started. I used to observe other 
managers who are running publicly traded companies from time to time 
make really bad decisions about what to do with their business. Those 
bad decisions were often based on a fundamental premise that they would 
pander to the market and put forth unrealistic expectations. They would 
make bad decisions to achieve those expectations, and the story would 
end badly.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. DELANEY. That is what we have here. We have unrealistic 
expectations, a series of bad decisions, and, if this were to be 
followed, a bad outcome.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  The message we hear today from my Democrat friends is the economy is 
great. This is really historical. We are adding just millions of new 
jobs. But that is not the real story. That is not the real economy.
  The truth is millions of Americans have become so discouraged they 
have just dropped out of looking for work. Four out of 10 college 
graduates, they can't find a job, or they can't find a job that needs a 
college degree, so they are working behind a cash register.
  We have got the fewest number of adults percentagewise in the 
workforce today since the recovery began. So we have actually, since 
things are supposed to be so great, fewer adults then ever since that 
period. We are about flat. In some cases, we have gone backwards.
  And the unemployment rate, while it is lowered to 5.5 percent in real 
terms, if our number of workers had stayed in the workforce, the true 
rate is closer to 9.7 percent.

[[Page H1913]]

  If we want to stay with this second-rate disappointing recovery, stay 
the course. But if we want a stronger, healthier economy, we need to 
change direction. The Republican budget under Chairman Tom Price 
changes the trajectory and the momentum of America's economy, balancing 
it without raising taxes. The Federal Reserve said one of the drags on 
our economy are the tax increases from President Obama's fiscal cliff. 
We have so much more work to do to help our families, young people, and 
those looking for a job, we can't settle for second rate.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  The Republican budget looks like a blueprint, but it is not. It is 
more like a vague set of directions, with the most important pieces 
missing.
  This budget calls for vast cuts, but it doesn't specify what will be 
cut or who will suffer the pain. It claims to lower budget deficits, 
but it relies on accounting gimmickry.
  This document is not a blueprint. It is not an engineering marvel. It 
does not deserve our praise or even serious attention. It is 
fundamentally dishonest. It is a dishonest document that would hurt 
millions of Americans and imperil our future.

  The deceptions in this document have already been brought to light by 
some of our Nation's leading papers. At this point, the fact that this 
budget is misleading doesn't surprise us, but the scope of the 
deception is absolutely breathtaking.
  Before we go to the great leader from the great State of North 
Carolina, I would like to point out who gets hurt in this budget.
  The Republican budget is also deceptive because it hides the fact 
that the ``savings'' they talk about, it achieves these savings at a 
huge cost to working families. Their budget is balanced on the backs of 
working Americans.
  This budget slashes our investment in education. It devastates our 
investment in research and innovation. It ignores the problems of our 
crumbling infrastructure. It provides no solution to the looming 
bankruptcy of the Federal transportation fund, and it will destroy up 
to 2.9 million jobs in 2017 alone.
  This is not general belt-tightening. It is the wholesale strangling 
of the dreams and opportunities of those who are already struggling.
  It could fairly be called a plan to ``soak the poor,'' because the 
poor and working Americans would be hit especially hard by this budget 
proposal, which would allow critical provisions of the earned income 
tax credit and the child tax credit to expire at the end of 2017. 
Democratic programs to help working Americans would expire under their 
plan.
  And that would increase the number of people in poverty by an 
estimated 1.8 million, including 1 million children.
  This budget falsely claims that it will, in the Republican words, 
``make sure that those who need assistance get more than an invitation 
into a broken system.''
  It then proceeds to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
by $125 billion between 2021 and 2025. This would either mean the end 
of food assistance for millions of low-income families or a cut in 
benefits below the less than $1.50 per person per meal households now 
receive.
  This budget would then further convert Medicaid and the Children's 
Health Insurance Program into a block grant and drastically reduce its 
funding. This is not a budget for the future. It destroys the dreams of 
working Americans for the future.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of North 
Carolina (Ms. Adams), a new member of our committee.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  I stand in opposition to this blatantly dishonest Republican budget.
  Republicans call this A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America, but I 
call it Robin Hood in reverse.
  Republicans say that it will bring greater opportunity and a 
healthier economy for the working class, but I say it widens the gap 
between the haves and the have-nots.
  Our economy is driven by middle class American families.
  This budget attacks them, and it attacks our economy. It is a one-
sided partisan plan, increasing savings for the rich by $200,000, 
increasing taxes for the average American by $2,000. It repeals the 
Affordable Care Act, which has insured 16 million more people 
previously uninsured.
  The district in North Carolina I represent benefits from the 
Democratic alternative budget. It is negatively impacted by this 
Republican budget.
  My district has an unemployment rate more than double the State and 
the national average, and more than 27 percent of people in my district 
live below the poverty line. That is 12 percent more, Mr. Chair, than 
the national average.
  Cuts to SNAP funding in this budget impact more than 1.5 million 
North Carolinians and more than 65,000 people in our 12th District. I 
cannot support a budget that hurts my constituents. We need a budget 
that brings jobs back to the 12th District and to the millions of 
Americans across this Nation who work hard every day to feed their 
families.
  This budget launches a strong attack on education. As a former 
professor and member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I am 
troubled by the fact that this budget slashes $1.2 billion in education 
funding for our country, cutting more than $36 million in education 
funding for North Carolinians. 790 children under 5 in North Carolina 
would be left out of critical Head Start programs. Pell grants would be 
frozen for students. When our children fail, everyone fails.
  The Democratic alternative budget is what we need because it supports 
hard-working middle class families, it contributes to job growth, it 
invests in our children's education, and it supports our most vital 
programs.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side to join me and countless other 
Members in supporting a sensible Democratic alternative. Let's continue 
the blue rise that our President made possible.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how 
much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, the budget 
deceptively claims to adhere to the budget caps that are otherwise 
known as the sequestration levels of 2016, yet it adds tens of billions 
of dollars to what Republicans themselves have called a ``slush fund'' 
for defense, including lucrative military contracts.
  The budget dishonestly calls for another $1.1 trillion in cuts to 
``mandatory'' programs somewhere, somehow without specifying what those 
cuts would be, who they would hit, or how it would all happen.
  And it does not balance the budget. The budget falsely claims that it 
will place the country on a path of prosperity and paying off the debt 
when, in fact, it will not. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul 
Krugman has pointed out: If this budget were to become law, as written, 
it would actually leave the Federal Government several trillion dollars 
deeper in debt than claimed.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), 
my good friend.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, today, we will be asked to vote on a budget resolution 
that should outline our priorities and our values as a nation.
  But this year, House Republicans have proposed what I refer to as a 
``magic budget'' that goes far beyond the sleights of hand and fiscal 
gimmicks that folks have grown accustomed to seeing here in Washington.

                              {time}  1315

  Republicans would like us to believe that their painful spending cuts 
will balance the budget in just 9 years. Unfortunately, the basic 
immutable laws of accounting contradict this claim. The Republican 
budget claims to save $5.5 trillion and balance the budget in just 9 
years. Allow me to explain this magic budget.
  The magic budget extends tax cuts for corporations and eliminates the 
alternative minimum tax, but it doesn't

[[Page H1914]]

account for the $150 billion in lost revenue. This is where it gets 
even trickier. The Republican budget then cuts $1.1 trillion in 
spending without any indication of where it would come from.
  It then takes a sharp turn to the right and repeals ObamaCare, but it 
still, amazingly, uses the $1 trillion in future revenue from ObamaCare 
to balance the budget by 2024.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one magic budget. America deserves better.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The one thing that economist Paul Krugman is expert at is being 
wrong. Had we followed his prescription, this economy would be even 
slower than it is, and our Nation would be deeper in debt.
  Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. 
The latest numbers, as of January of this year, show the amount of 
revenue the Federal Government has been taking in from each and every 
American is at nearly record highs.
  The Republican budget strengthens the economy, tackles the spending 
problem, and changes the course of this disappointing recovery.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  I would like to respond to my good friend on the other side of the 
aisle.
  Economist Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner, did not support the 
Republican policies that led to the red, deep valley when we were 
losing 800,000 jobs a month. He supported many of the proposals that 
President Obama and the Democrats implemented, which led to growth and 
more jobs.
  The President and the Democrats will not be satisfied until every 
American who wants a job has a job; yet numbers don't lie, and this 
chart, which is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' numbers, shows 
policies that led to 800,000 jobs lost per month to, now, an economy 
that is growing.
  I admit that Democrats will not be happy until it grows even more, 
but 12 million private sector jobs have been added. I want to go back 
to a budget that, I believe, will turn this blue into the red again. We 
have to continue with the blue policies that led to economic 
opportunities and job growth.
  Now, the Republican budget document claims that it aims to make sure 
that government keeps the promises that it has made, and then it 
proceeds to lay out plans to demolish Medicare. Medicare is one of the 
most successful and universally popular programs ever designed.
  It provides high-quality health care for Americans over the age of 
65; yet this Republican budget would replace this program with a 
voucher program, giving seniors a coupon to help defray the cost of 
private insurance. Seniors would have to immediately pay new copays for 
preventative care and much higher costs for prescription drugs.
  They don't say how they are going to help the seniors. They are just 
going to give them this voucher program. Can private insurance 
companies provide better coverage? They don't know. They don't say 
anything about it. They just give them vouchers and let them go to 
private insurance.
  They don't say whether their program will cost more in out-of-pocket 
expenses, but I think it definitely will. Dismantling health care is a 
radical proposition. My guess is that, if Congress tries to take apart 
Medicare, millions of Americans will storm Capitol Hill.
  Let's remember what happened in the early 2000s when then-President 
George W. Bush tried to partially privatize Social Security. Like 
Medicare, Social Security is extremely popular with seniors because it 
works, and it makes a huge, positive difference in their lives.
  For many older Americans, Social Security is the only source of 
retirement income they will have, and for others, it is a critical 
supplement to their savings. Republicans have previously tried to 
privatize it.
  Let's be honest with the American people. If my Republican colleagues 
want to dismantle Medicare, they should come right out and say it and 
say it loudly.
  In their budget proposal, our friends across the aisle complain about 
how long it has taken our economy to recover from the Great Recession. 
Remember that it bubbled up and blew up on their watch. The recession 
was on their watch with their proposals.
  Their budget talks a great deal about accountability; yet nowhere do 
our Republican colleagues indicate that they should be held accountable 
for the mistakes and the mismanagement that led to the Great Recession. 
To the $17 trillion in household wealth that was lost, thankfully, most 
of that household wealth has been regained, and that is thanks to the 
Obama recovery.
  For my Republican friends who want to brush away any mention of the 
failed Republican policies of the past that brought us to the verge of 
economic collapse, I would remind you of the prophesy--of the words--of 
a great philosopher who said: Those who do not know the past are 
condemned to repeat it.
  I do not want to go back to the past of the red, deep valley that 
this chart shows. Republicans' promises in the past of prosperity 
through austerity have proven to be hollow. Democratic policies have 
produced an economy that has just added more than 200 private sector 
jobs every month for 12 straight months. That is the first time that 
has happened since 1977.
  Republicans' predictions that the passage of the Recovery Act would 
produce economic doom, hyperinflation, and the collapse of the dollar 
were all proven wrong. Democratic policies have produced an economy 
that has been growing steadily, with low inflation, a strong dollar, 
cheap gas, a deficit that has shrunk by two-thirds, and a Dow Jones 
index that has tripled.
  Republicans lamented that the passage of the Affordable Care Act 
would make health care unaffordable. It turned out to be totally 
untrue. The annual increase in healthcare premiums has dropped to a 50-
year low.
  Now, I would like to take a short detour to give some advice for home 
buyers. If you ever consider buying a new house that is built on a 
blueprint like this Republican budget blueprint, please do not do it. 
Save your money. Look for a home that is built on a solid foundation. 
Look for a house that has strong walls and a solid roof. Look for one 
that will protect your family for a long time. Don't buy a house built 
on a blueprint that is as shoddy as this one.
  They are going back to their same failed policy. This budget is a 
fiasco, and the numbers do not add up. I am pleased that even some of 
my Republican colleagues have had the courage to say so. Some have 
called it budgetary tricks, gimmicks, funny money, slush funds; but the 
truth is far worse than that.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, did I hear the Chair say that all 
time has expired on the Democrat side of the aisle?
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman from New York has 
expired.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Look, I don't blame Democrats for not understanding this budget. They 
could never pass one. In fact, there hasn't been a budget for this 
great country since 2009, when they were in charge. In fact, it is the 
Republicans who have consistently in the House passed a budget only to 
have a Democrat Senate do nothing.
  Now, for the first time, the American public has said: we have had 
enough of this, enough of the deficits, enough of this struggling 
economy, enough of this out-of-control spending; we want a real budget.
  This step takes place today with Chairman Price's balanced budget for 
a stronger economy. I would point out that the American public knows 
exactly the Democratic policies that have brought them the weakest 
recovery in 50 years, and it is why, 5 years after the recovery began, 
most Americans still think they are in a recession. They think their 
families and their communities are still in a recession. We are not 
going to settle for this second-rate economy.
  I would point out, while I am pleased there has been some job 
creation over the last 60 months, compare it to the average. If this 
were just a C-grade recovery--just the middle of the pack, nothing to 
brag about--we would be creating 403,000 new jobs every month,

[[Page H1915]]

not 200,000-plus. It would be almost double that. If you look at the 
Reagan recovery, which had higher unemployment, there were 750,000 jobs 
more a month.
  That chart does show positive growth, but it is so weak and so 
disappointing, and it is accompanied by stagnant paychecks and college 
graduates who are working behind cash registers. If we want to stick 
with that, no problem, we know exactly what to do; but if we want to 
change course as a country, if we want to stop growing Washington's 
economy and grow our local economies, we are going to have to change 
course.
  The weakness of this recovery can be captured in three numbers. We 
are missing $1.5 trillion out of today's economy, and people are 
suffering. We are missing 5.5 million jobs, which is enough to put 
everyone looking for work in 45 States back to work, and we are missing 
$11,000 a year out of a family of four's family budget.
  Can you imagine what $11,000 could do in paying for tuition and fuel 
and college costs? This growth gap will persist unless we change 
course.
  Firstly, the budget resolution gradually addresses these issues by 
gradually bringing Federal spending back into line, allowing Washington 
to balance the budget and grow the economy.
  Secondly, the budget resolution builds on the success of the welfare 
reform of the 1990s when Democrat President Bill Clinton and a 
Republican Congress worked together to give block grants to the States 
so they could develop programs to help able-bodied, working poor people 
find jobs, and it succeeded.
  In employing this successful model, the budget resolution envisions 
converting Medicaid and food stamp programs into block grants that 
would allow States to tailor these programs to the needs of their 
States, to experiment and to find more innovative ways to get people 
out of work and into a career and a lifetime that they have envisioned.
  Thirdly, the budget envisions the repeal of the unpopular and 
unworkable monstrosity known as ObamaCare.
  Fourthly, the budget resolution envisions saving Medicare once and 
for all, putting in place the reforms that would actually keep this 
important program for seniors and for generations to come.
  Finally, the budget resolution envisions progrowth tax reform--built 
for growth--to get America back to work and American companies 
competing and winning around the world.
  There is so much more we must do in reforming the Tax Code and 
balancing regulation and creating a sound dollar and creating sales 
agreements around the world so our companies can compete, but we can't 
do that until this government has a budget that is built for America's 
growth, not for the government's growth.
  I strongly commend the work of Chairman Price and of the other 
Republican members of the Budget Committee. I urge the House to vote 
for this budget resolution. We need to change course in this country so 
we can get hard-working taxpayers, young people, and families back to 
work and living the American Dream.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, Section 804 of H. Con. Res. 27 
contains the budget resolution's policy statement on tax reform. These 
policy goals are familiar, as we have been pursuing them for several 
years now. They include simplifying the tax code for families and 
businesses, reducing tax rates and consolidating the existing seven 
brackets into just two, repealing the burdensome Alternative Minimum 
Tax, reducing what is currently the highest corporate rate in the 
developed world, and transitioning to a more competitive system of 
international taxation.
  With respect to this last goal, the budget resolution includes 
language that did not appear in previous budget resolutions. Section 
804(b)(5) specifies that our international tax system should be 
reformed ``in a manner that does not discriminate against any 
particular type of income or industry.'' Because this language is new, 
I would like to explain in more detail how it should be interpreted.
  Nondiscrimination is a key principle of tax reform. The tax code 
should not pick winners or losers. All businesses should be on a level 
playing field, so that the free market decides where to allocate 
capital based on the most promising economic opportunities, not based 
on where one can obtain the most tax breaks. At the same time, when 
some taxpayers use sophisticated tax planning to exploit loopholes in 
the tax code to achieve a result much more favorable than other 
taxpayers can achieve, the nondiscrimination principle is violated and 
capital flows to the least taxed investments rather than to the most 
economically productive investments, leading to economic distortions 
and lower growth. For this reason, the committee report on H. Con. Res. 
27, House Report 114-47, clarifies that, ``This nondiscrimination 
principle, however, is not intended to prevent the adoption of 
reasonable anti-avoidance rules.''
  As an example, under the current tax code a U.S. company that keeps 
its intellectual property (IP) in the United States and licenses it to 
foreign customers must pay a corporate tax rate of 35 percent on 
royalties related to that IP. But a competitor that moves its IP from 
the United States to a foreign subsidiary in Bermuda and then licenses 
it to foreign customers pays zero on its royalties. That means our tax 
code discriminates against U.S.-owned IP and in favor of foreign-owned 
IP, which is why so much of our valuable intellectual property has left 
the country. On the other hand, a tax reform proposal that says both 
companies pay the same low tax rate on those royalties--for instance, a 
rate similar to Ireland's rate, which is where so many U.S. companies 
are moving to lower their tax burden--would end this discrimination and 
therefore would be consistent with section 804(b)(5). And by ending 
this discrimination with the same low tax rate for both companies, the 
proposal would encourage not only intellectual property to return to 
the United States, but also the R&D and manufacturing jobs associated 
with it.
  I hope this clarifies how section 804(b)(5) should be interpreted, 
and I look forward to working with Chairman Price and the rest of my 
colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, as we continue working 
to enact tax reform legislation in the 114th Congress.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate on the subject of 
economic goals and policies has 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. 27

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

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2016.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2016 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
       (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 2016.

                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.
Sec. 202. Reconciliation procedures.
Sec. 203. Additional guidance for reconciliation.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

Sec. 301. Submissions of findings for the elimination of waste, fraud, 
              and abuse.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate 
              macroeconomic effects.
Sec. 402. Limitation on measures affecting Social Security solvency.
Sec. 403. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 404. Limitation on transfers from the general fund of the Treasury 
              to the Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 405. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 406. Fair value credit estimates.
Sec. 407. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 408. Allocation for overseas contingency operations/global war on 
              terrorism.
Sec. 409. Adjustments for improved control of budgetary resources.
Sec. 410. Concepts, aggregates, allocations and application.
Sec. 411. Rulemaking powers.

                         TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 501. Reserve fund for the repeal of the President's health care 
              law.
Sec. 502. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for promoting real health care 
              reform.
Sec. 503. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare 
              provisions of the President's health care law.
Sec. 504. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the State Children's Health 
              Insurance Program.
Sec. 505. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for graduate medical education.
Sec. 506. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.

[[Page H1916]]

Sec. 507. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 508. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 509. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and increase 
              opportunity and upward mobility.
Sec. 510. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.
Sec. 511. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Federal retirement reform.
Sec. 512. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for defense sequester 
              replacement.
Sec. 513. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for overseas contingency 
              operations/global war on terrorism.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 601. Direct spending.

                TITLE VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Sec. 701. Long-term budgeting.

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 801. Policy statement on balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 802. Policy statement on budget process and baseline reform.
Sec. 803. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 804. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 805. Policy statement on trade.
Sec. 806. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 807. Policy statement on repealing the President's health care law 
              and promoting real health care reform.
Sec. 808. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 809. Policy statement on medical discovery, development, delivery 
              and innovation.
Sec. 810. Policy statement on Federal regulatory reform.
Sec. 811. Policy statement on higher education and workforce 
              development opportunity.
Sec. 812. Policy statement on Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 813. Policy statement on Federal accounting methodologies.
Sec. 814. Policy statement on scorekeeping for outyear budgetary 
              effects in appropriation Acts.
Sec. 815. Policy statement on reducing unnecessary, wasteful, and 
              unauthorized spending.
Sec. 816. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the 
              cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 817. Policy statement on agency fees and spending.
Sec. 818. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
              dollars.
Sec. 819. Policy statement on ``No Budget, No Pay''.
Sec. 820. Policy statement on national security funding.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2025:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,666,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,763,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,858,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,974,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,099,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,241,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,388,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,550,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,722,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,905,648,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $0.
       Fiscal year 2017: $0.
       Fiscal year 2018: $0.
       Fiscal year 2019: $0.
       Fiscal year 2020: $0.
       Fiscal year 2021: $0.
       Fiscal year 2022: $0.
       Fiscal year 2023: $0.
       Fiscal year 2024: $0.
       Fiscal year 2025: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,934,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,873,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,944,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,091,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,248,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,327,968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,462,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,529,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,586,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,715,272,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,009,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,893,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,927,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,062,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,205,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,298,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,452,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,497,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,538,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,685,320,000,000.
       (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 2016: -$342,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$130,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$68,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$87,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$106,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$56,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$63,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $52,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $183,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $220,418,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The budgetary levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,047,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,393,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,641,396,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $19,947,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $20,261,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $20,505,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $20,906,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $21,075,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $20,916,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $20,904,522,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The budgetary levels of debt 
     held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,838,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,040,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,145,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $14,338,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,560,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $14,742,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $15,128,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $15,300,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $15,162,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $15,235,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the budgetary 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $531,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $564,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $572,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $644,627,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $657,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $648,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $683,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $663,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $698,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $683,350,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $38,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,564,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,861,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,349,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $28,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,338,000,000.

[[Page H1917]]

       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,795,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$3,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,375,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$964,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,215,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $35,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,095,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,471,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $20,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,396,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,851,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$3,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -28,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,845,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $36,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,051,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,983,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $7,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,688,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,930,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $80,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,901,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,101,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,734,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $416,475,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $367,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $388,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $398,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $398,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $408,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $425,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $433,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $434,143,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $577,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $577,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $580,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,777,000,000.

[[Page H1918]]

       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $580,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $639,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $680,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $680,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $726,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $726,548,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $808,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $808,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $825,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $825,379,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $834,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $834,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $927,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $927,292,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $512,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $513,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $479,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $516,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $510,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $496,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $519,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $521,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,361,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $33,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $166,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,387,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $179,735,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,969,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $196,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $195,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,668,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $188,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $203,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $202,383,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $52,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,572,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,051,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $23,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,825,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $366,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $366,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $477,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $531,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $531,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $612,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $642,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $642,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $667,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $684,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $684,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $695,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $695,929,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$33,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$29,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,913,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,058,000,000.
       (20) Government-wide savings (930):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $27,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$15,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,954,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:

[[Page H1919]]

       (A) New budget authority, -$71,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$65,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$113,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,929,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$73,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$73,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$96,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$96,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$99,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$104,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$104,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$111,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$111,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$117,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$117,896,000,000.
       (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $94,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,758,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $9,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $2,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (23) Across-the-Board Adjustment (990):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$21,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submission Providing for Deficit Reduction.--Not later 
     than July 15, 2015, the committees named in subsection (b) 
     shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives to carry out this 
     section.
       (b) Instructions.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (2) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed 
     Services shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (3) 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 $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.
       (4) 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 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.
       (5) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
     Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (6) Committee on homeland security.--The Committee on 
     Homeland Security shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $15,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (7) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (8) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
     Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (9) 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 $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (10) Committee on science, space, and technology.--The 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $15,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (11) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (12) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (13) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways 
     and Means shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.

     SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Estimating Assumptions.--
       (1) Assumptions.--In the House, for purposes of titles III 
     and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall use the baseline underlying 
     the Congressional Budget Office's Budget and Economic 
     Outlook: 2015 to 2025 (January 2015) when making estimates of 
     any bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon. If adjustments to the baseline are 
     made subsequent to the adoption of this concurrent 
     resolution, then such chair shall determine whether to use 
     any of these adjustments when making such estimates.
       (2) Intent.--The authority set forth in paragraph (1) 
     should only be exercised if the estimates used to determine 
     the compliance of such measures with the budgetary 
     requirements included in the concurrent resolution are 
     inaccurate because adjustments made to the baseline are 
     inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the budgetary 
     levels set forth in this concurrent resolution. Such 
     inaccurate adjustments made after the adoption of this 
     concurrent resolution may include selected adjustments for 
     rulemaking, judicial actions, adjudication, and 
     interpretative rules that have major budgetary effects and 
     are inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the 
     budgetary levels set forth in this concurrent resolution.
       (3) Congressional budget office estimates.--Upon the 
     request of the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House for any measure, the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     prepare an estimate based on the baseline determination made 
     by such chair pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (b) Repeal of the President's Health Care Law Through 
     Reconciliation.--In preparing their submissions under section 
     201(a) to the Committee on the Budget, the committees named 
     in section 201(b) shall--
       (1) note the policies described in the report accompanying 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget that repeal the 
     Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of 
     the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; and
       (2) determine the most effective methods by which the 
     health care laws referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     repealed in their entirety.
       (c) Revision of Budgetary Levels.--
       (1) Submission.--Upon the submission to the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House of a recommendation that has complied 
     with its reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of 
     section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Conference report.--Upon the submission to the House of 
     a conference report recommending a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution in which a committee has complied with its 
     reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of this section, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House may 
     file with the House appropriately revised allocations under 
     section 302(a) of such Act and revised functional levels and 
     aggregates.

[[Page H1920]]

       (3) Revision.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Guidance.--In the House, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may develop additional guidelines providing 
     further information, budgetary levels and amounts, and other 
     explanatory material to supplement the instructions included 
     in this concurrent resolution pursuant to section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and set forth in section 
     201.
       (b) Publication.--In the House, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may cause the material prepared pursuant to 
     subsection (a) to be printed in the Congressional Record on 
     the appropriate date, but not later than the date set forth 
     in this title on which committees must submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget in order to 
     comply with the reconciliation instructions set forth in 
     section 201.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

     SEC. 301. SUBMISSIONS OF FINDINGS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

       (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse.--In the House, not later than October 1, 
     2015, the committees named in subsection (d) shall submit to 
     the Committee on the Budget findings that identify changes in 
     law within their jurisdictions that would achieve the 
     specified level of savings through the elimination of waste, 
     fraud, and abuse.
       (b) Recommendations Submitted.--After receiving those 
     recommendations --
       (1) the Committee on the Budget may use them in the 
     development of future concurrent resolutions on the budget; 
     and
       (2) the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     shall make such recommendations publicly available in 
     electronic form and cause them to be placed in the 
     Congressional Record not later than 30 days after receipt.
       (c) Specified Levels of Savings.--For purposes of this 
     section, a specified level of savings for each committee may 
     be inserted in the Congressional Record by the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (d) House Committees.--The following committees shall 
     submit findings to the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     of Representatives pursuant to subsection (a): the Committee 
     on Agriculture, the Committee on Armed Services, the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, the Committee on House Administration, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, the Committee on Natural Resources, the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on 
     Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       (e) Report by the Government Accountability Office.--By 
     August 1, 2015, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives a 
     comprehensive report identifying instances in which the 
     committees referred to in subsection (d) may make legislative 
     changes to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 
     of programs within their jurisdiction.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. COST ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR LEGISLATION TO INCORPORATE 
                   MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS.

       (a) CBO Estimates.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, an estimate provided by the Congressional 
     Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 for any major legislation considered in the House 
     or the Senate during fiscal year 2016 shall, to the extent 
     practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in 
     economic output, employment, capital stock, and other 
     macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.
       (b) Joint Committee on Taxation Estimates.--For purposes of 
     the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, any estimate 
     provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation to the Director 
     of the Congressional Budget Office under section 201(f) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major 
     legislation shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the 
     budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, 
     capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting 
     from such legislation.
       (c) Contents.--Any estimate referred to in this section 
     shall, to the extent practicable, include--
       (1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects 
     (including macroeconomic variables described in subsections 
     (a) and (b)) of such legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
     beginning after the last fiscal year of this concurrent 
     resolution sets forth budgetary levels required by section 
     301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the 
     source of data underlying that estimate.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``major legislation'' means any bill or joint 
     resolution--
       (A) for which an estimate is required to be prepared 
     pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and that causes a gross budgetary effect (before 
     incorporating macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year over 
     the years of the most recently agreed to concurrent 
     resolution on the budget equal to or greater than 0.25 
     percent of the current projected gross domestic product of 
     the United States for that fiscal year; or
       (B) designated as such by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget for all direct spending legislation other than revenue 
     legislation or the Member who is chair or vice chair, as 
     applicable, of the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue 
     legislation; and
       (2) the term ``budgetary effects'' means changes in 
     revenues, budget authority, outlays, and deficits.

     SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON MEASURES AFFECTING SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   SOLVENCY.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, it shall not be in order to consider in the 
     House or the Senate a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reduces 
     the actuarial balance by at least .01 percent of the present 
     value of future taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund established under section 
     201(a) of the Social Security Act for the 75-year period 
     utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of 
     Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a measure 
     that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined 
     balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 
     75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of 
     the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 403. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (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 enforcing 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 
     discretionary amounts described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 404. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF 
                   THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       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. 405. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in 
     subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in 
     the report to accompany this concurrent resolution or the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers to accompany this 
     concurrent resolution under the heading:
       (1) General.--``Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''; and
       (2) Veterans.--``Veterans Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--The aggregate level of advance 
     appropriations shall not exceed--
       (1) General.--$28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     all programs identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1); and
       (2) Veterans.--$63,271,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs identified 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Definition.--The term ``advance appropriation'' means 
     any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or 
     joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, making general appropriations or continuing 
     appropriations, for the fiscal year following fiscal year 
     2016.

     SEC. 406. FAIR VALUE CREDIT ESTIMATES.

       (a) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or 
     ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate 
     of the budgetary effects of a measure prepared by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget

[[Page H1921]]

     Office under the terms of title V of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, ``credit reform'' shall, as a supplement to such 
     estimate, and 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.
       (b) Fair Value Estimates for Housing and Student Loan 
     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 budgetary effects 
     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 budgetary effect related to a housing, 
     residential mortgage or student loan program under title V of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 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 effect.
       (c) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a) 
     or (b), 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. 407. 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 in the fiscal year following the last 
     fiscal year of this concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 408. ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
                   GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Separate OCO/GWOT Allocation.--In the House, there 
     shall be a separate allocation of new budget authority and 
     outlays provided to the Committee on Appropriations for the 
     purposes of Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism.
       (b) Application.--For purposes of enforcing the separate 
     allocation referred to in subsection (a) 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 2016. Section 302(c) of such Act shall 
     not apply to such separate allocation.
       (c) Designations.--New budget authority or outlays counting 
     toward the allocation established by subsection (a) shall be 
     designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Adjustments.--For purposes of subsection (a) for fiscal 
     year 2016, 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. 409. ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVED CONTROL OF BUDGETARY 
                   RESOURCES.

       (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending 
     Levels.--In the House, if a committee (other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or offers any amendment thereto or submits a 
     conference report thereon, providing for a decrease in direct 
     spending (budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for 
     any fiscal year and also provides for an authorization of 
     appropriations for the same purpose, upon the enactment of 
     such measure, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     decrease the allocation to such committee and increase the 
     allocation of discretionary spending (budget authority and 
     outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2016 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) Determinations.--In the House, for the purpose of 
     enforcing this concurrent resolution, the allocations and 
     aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for fiscal year 2016 and the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through fiscal year 2025 shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget and such chair may adjust applicable levels of this 
     concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 410. CONCEPTS, AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS AND APPLICATION.

       (a) Concepts, Allocations, and Application.--In the House--
       (1) upon a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution accordingly;
       (2) any adjustments of the allocations, aggregates, and 
     other budgetary levels made pursuant to this concurrent 
     resolution shall--
       (A) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (B) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable;
       (3) section 202 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) shall 
     have no force or effect for any reconciliation bill reported 
     pursuant to instructions set forth in this concurrent 
     resolution;
       (4) the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary 
     levels to reflect changes resulting from the most recently 
     published or adjusted baseline of the Congressional Budget 
     Office; and
       (5) the term ``budget year'' means the most recent fiscal 
     year for which a concurrent resolution on the budget has been 
     adopted.
       (b) Aggregates, Allocations and Application.--In the House, 
     for purposes of this concurrent resolution and budget 
     enforcement--
       (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 budgetary 
     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 407 of this 
     concurrent resolution; and
       (2) 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.

     SEC. 411. 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 V--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 501. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   HEALTH CARE LAW.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that consists solely of the 
     full repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the health care-
     related provisions of the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 or measures that make 
     modifications to such law.

     SEC. 502. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROMOTING REAL 
                   HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that promotes real health care 
     reform, if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 503. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE 
                   MEDICARE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH 
                   CARE LAW.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     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 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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 504. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure extends the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 505. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, expands access to, and 
     improves, as determined by such chair, graduate medical 
     education programs, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     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 budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution reported by the 
     Committee on Ways and

[[Page H1922]]

     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 
     2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 507. 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 budgetary 
     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 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 508. 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 budgetary 
     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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 509. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE POVERTY AND 
                   INCREASE OPPORTUNITY AND UPWARD MOBILITY.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms policies and programs to 
     reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward mobility, 
     but only if such measure would neither adversely impact job 
     creation nor increase the deficit over the period of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 510. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure maintains the solvency of the 
     Highway Trust Fund, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 511. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FEDERAL RETIREMENT 
                   REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, improves and updates the 
     Federal retirement system, as determined by such chair, but 
     only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 512. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFENSE SEQUESTER 
                   REPLACEMENT.

       The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure supports the following activities: Department of 
     Defense training and maintenance associated with combat 
     readiness, modernization of equipment, auditability of 
     financial statements, or military compensation and benefit 
     reforms, by the amount provided for these purposes, but only 
     if such measure would not increase the deficit (without 
     counting any net revenue increases in that measure) over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 513. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR OVERSEAS 
                   CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure is related to the support of Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation in excess of $73.5 billion but not to exceed 
     $94 billion, but only if such measure would not increase the 
     deficit (without counting any net revenue increases in that 
     measure) over the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 601. 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 2016 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2016 is 4.6 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending:
       (A) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a Democratic 
     president reformed welfare by limiting the duration of 
     benefits, giving States more control over the program, and 
     helping recipients find work. In the five years following 
     passage, child-poverty rates fell, welfare caseloads fell, 
     and workers' wages increased. This budget applies the lessons 
     of welfare reform to both the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program and Medicaid.
       (B) For Medicaid, this budget assumes the conversion of the 
     Federal share of Medicaid spending into flexible State 
     allotments, which States will be able to tailor to meet their 
     unique needs. Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-
     fits-all approach that ties the hands of State governments 
     and would provide States with the freedom and flexibility 
     they have long requested in the Medicaid program. Moreover, 
     this budget assumes the repeal of the Medicaid expansions in 
     the President's health care law, relieving State governments 
     of the crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates, as 
     well as the overwhelming pressure the law's Medicaid 
     expansion puts on an already-strained system.
       (C) For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this 
     budget assumes the conversion of the program into a flexible 
     State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs. The 
     allotment would increase based on the Department of 
     Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan index and beneficiary growth. 
     Such a reform would provide incentives for States to ensure 
     dollars will go towards those who need them most.
       (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 2016 is 5.4 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 2016 is 5.5 
     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. Future retirees would be able to 
     choose from a range of guaranteed coverage options, with 
     private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-
     service Medicare program. Medicare would provide a premium-
     support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of 
     the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost. 
     The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so 
     that the sick would receive higher payments if their 
     conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive 
     additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and 
     wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater 
     share of their premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how 
     their health care dollars are spent will force providers to 
     compete against each other on price and quality. This market 
     competition will act as a real check on widespread waste and 
     skyrocketing health care costs. As with previous budgets, 
     this program will begin in 2024 and makes no changes to those 
     in or near retirement.
       (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 VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

     SEC. 701. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

       The following are the recommended revenue, spending, and 
     deficit levels for each of fiscal years 2030, 2035, and 2040 
     as a percent of the gross domestic product of the United 
     States:
       (1) Revenues.--The budgetary levels of Federal revenues are 
     as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 18.7 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 19.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 19.0 percent.
       (2) Outlays.--The budgetary levels of total budget outlays 
     are not to exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: 18.4 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 17.8 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 16.9 percent.
       (3) Deficits.--The budgetary levels of deficits are not to 
     exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: -0.3 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: -1.2 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: -2.1 percent.
       (4) Debt.--The budgetary levels of debt held by the public 
     are not to exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: 44.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 32.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 18.0 percent.

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

     SEC. 801. POLICY STATEMENT ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Government collects approximately $3 
     trillion annually in taxes, but spends more than $3.5 
     trillion to maintain the operations of government. The 
     Federal Government must borrow 14 cents of every Federal 
     dollar spent.
       (2) At the end of the year 2014, the national debt of the 
     United States was more than $18.1 trillion.
       (3) A majority of States have petitioned the Federal 
     Government to hold a Constitutional Convention for the 
     consideration of adopting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution.
       (4) Forty-nine States have fiscal limitations in their 
     State Constitutions, including the requirement to annually 
     balance the budget.

[[Page H1923]]

       (5) H.J. Res. 2, sponsored by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-
     VA), was considered by the House of Representatives on 
     November 18, 2011, though it received 262 aye votes, it did 
     not receive the two-thirds required for passage.
       (6) Numerous balanced budget amendment proposals have been 
     introduced on a bipartisan basis in the House. Twelve were 
     introduced in the 113th Congress alone, including H.J. Res. 4 
     by Democratic Representative John J. Barrow of Georgia, and 
     H.J. Res. 38 by Republican Representative Jackie Walorski of 
     Indiana.
       (7) The joint resolution providing for a balanced budget 
     amendment to the U.S. Constitution referred to in paragraph 
     (5) prohibited outlays for a fiscal year (except those for 
     repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts 
     for that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) 
     unless Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote of each 
     chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over 
     receipts.
       (8) In 1995, a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
     Constitution passed the House with bipartisan support, but 
     failed of passage by one vote in the United States Senate.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this resolution 
     that Congress should pass a joint resolution incorporating 
     the provisions set forth in subsection (b), and send such 
     joint resolution to the States for their approval, to amend 
     the Constitution of the United States to require an annual 
     balanced budget.

     SEC. 802. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET PROCESS AND BASELINE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) In 1974, after more than 50 years of executive 
     dominance over fiscal policy, Congress acted to reassert its 
     ``power of the purse'', and passed the Congressional Budget 
     and Impoundment Control Act.
       (2) The measure explicitly sought to establish 
     congressional control over the budget process, to provide for 
     annual congressional determination of the appropriate level 
     of taxes and spending, to set important national budget 
     priorities, and to find ways in which Members of Congress 
     could have access to the most accurate, objective, and 
     highest quality information to assist them in discharging 
     their duties.
       (3) Far from achieving its intended purpose, however, the 
     process has instituted a bias toward higher spending and 
     larger government. The behemoth of the Federal Government has 
     largely been financed through either borrowing or taking ever 
     greater amounts of the national income through high taxation.
       (4) The process does not treat programs and policies 
     consistently and shows a bias toward higher spending and 
     higher taxes.
       (5) It assumes extension of spending programs (of more than 
     $50 million per year) scheduled to expire.
       (6) Yet it does not assume the extension of tax policies in 
     the same way. consequently, extending existing tax policies 
     that may be scheduled to expire is characterized as a new tax 
     reduction, requiring offsets to ``pay for'' merely keeping 
     tax policy the same even though estimating conventions would 
     not require similar treatment of spending programs.
       (7) The original goals set for the congressional process 
     are admirable in their intent, but because the essential 
     mechanisms of the process have remained the same, and 
     ``reforms'' enacted over the past 40 years have largely taken 
     the form of layering greater levels of legal complexity 
     without reforming or reassessing the very fundamental nature 
     of the process.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget that as the primary branch of 
     Government, Congress must:
       (1) Restructure the fundamental procedures of budget 
     decision making;
       (2) Reassert Congress's ``power of the purse'', and 
     reinforce the balance of powers between Congress and the 
     President, as the 1974 Act intended.
       (3) Create greater incentives for lawmakers to do budgeting 
     as intended by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     especially adopting a budget resolution every year.
       (4) Encourage more effective control over spending, 
     especially currently uncontrolled direct spending.
       (5) Consider innovative fiscal tools such as: zero based 
     budgeting, which would require a department or agency to 
     justify its budget as if it were a new expenditure; and 
     direct spending caps to enhance oversight of automatic pilot 
     spending that increases each year without congressional 
     approval.
       (6) Promote efficient and timely budget actions, so that 
     lawmakers complete their budget actions by the time the new 
     fiscal year begins.
       (7) Provide access to the best analysis of economic 
     conditions available and increase awareness of how fiscal 
     policy directly impacts overall economic growth and job 
     creation,
       (9) Remove layers of complexity that have complicated the 
     procedures designed in 1974, and made budgeting more arcane 
     and opaque.
       (10) Remove existing biases that favor higher spending.
       (11) Include procedures by which current tax laws may be 
     extended and treated on a basis that is not different from 
     the extension of entitlement programs.
       (c) Budget Process Reform.--Comprehensive budget process 
     reform should also remove the bias in the baseline against 
     the extension of current tax laws in the following ways:
       (1) Permanent extension of tax laws should not be used as a 
     means to increase taxes on other taxpayers;
       (2) For those expiring tax provisions that are proposed to 
     be permanently extended, Congress should use a more realistic 
     baseline that does not require them to be offset; and,
       (3) Tax-reform legislation should not include tax increases 
     just to offset the extension of current tax laws.
       (d) Legislation.--The Committee on the Budget intends to 
     draft legislation during the 114th Congress that will rewrite 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     to fulfill the goals of making the congressional budget 
     process more effective in ensuring taxpayers' dollars are 
     spent wisely and efficiently.

     SEC. 803. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB 
                   CREATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Although the United States economy technically emerged 
     from recession more than 5 years ago, the subsequent recovery 
     has felt more like a malaise than a rebound. Real gross 
     domestic product GDP growth over the past 5 years has 
     averaged slightly more than 2 percent, well below the 3.2 
     percent historical trend rate of growth in the United States. 
     Although the economy has shown some welcome signs of 
     improvement of late, the Nation remains in the midst of the 
     weakest economic recovery of the modern era.
       (2) Looking ahead, CBO expects the economy to grow by an 
     average of just 2.3 percent over the next 10 years. That 
     level of economic growth is simply unacceptable and 
     insufficient to expand opportunities and the incomes of 
     millions of middle-income Americans.
       (3) Sluggish economic growth has also contributed to the 
     country's fiscal woes. Subpar growth means that revenue 
     levels are lower than they would otherwise be while 
     government spending (e.g. welfare and income-support 
     programs) is higher. Clearly, there is a dire need for 
     policies that will spark higher rates of economic growth and 
     greater, higher-quality job opportunities
       (4) Although job gains have been trending up of late, other 
     aspects of the labor market remain weak. The labor force 
     participation rate, for instance, is hovering just under 63 
     percent, close to the lowest level since 1978. Long-term 
     unemployment also remains a problem. Of the roughly 8.7 
     million people who are currently unemployed, 2.7 million 
     (more than 30 percent) have been unemployed for more than 6 
     months. Long-term unemployment erodes an individual's job 
     skills and detaches them from job opportunities. It also 
     undermines the long-term productive capacity of the economy.
       (5) Perhaps most important, wage gains and income growth 
     have been subpar for middle-class Americans. Average hourly 
     earnings of private-sector workers have increased by just 1.6 
     percent over the past year. Prior to the recession, average 
     hourly earnings were tracking close to 4 percent. Likewise, 
     average income levels have remained flat in recent years. 
     Real median household income is just under $52,000, one of 
     the lowest levels since 1995.
       (6) The unsustainable fiscal trajectory has cast a shadow 
     on the country's economic outlook. 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. This debt overhang, and the uncertainty it 
     generates, can weigh on growth, investment, and job creation.
       (7) Nearly all economists, including those at the CBO, 
     conclude that reducing budget deficits (thereby bending the 
     curve on debt levels is a net positive for economic growth 
     over time. The logic is that deficit reduction creates long-
     term economic benefits because it increases the pool of 
     national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising 
     economic growth and job creation.
       (8) CBO analyzed the House Republican fiscal year 2016 
     budget resolution and found it would increase real output per 
     capita (a proxy for a country's standard of living) by about 
     $1,000 in 2025 and roughly $5,000 by 2040 relative to the 
     baseline path. That means more income and greater prosperity 
     for all Americans.
       (9) In contrast, if the Government remains on the current 
     fiscal path, future generations will face ever-higher debt 
     service costs, a decline in national savings, and a 
     ``crowding out'' of private investment. This dynamic will 
     eventually lead to a decline in economic output and a 
     diminution in our country's standard of living.
       (10) The key economic challenge is determining how to 
     expand the economic pie, not how best to divide up and re-
     distribute a shrinking pie.
       (11) A stronger economy is vital to lowering deficit levels 
     and eventually balancing the budget. According to CBO, if 
     annual real GDP growth is just 0.1 percentage point higher 
     over the budget window, deficits would be reduced by $326 
     billion.
       (12) This budget resolution therefore embraces pro-growth 
     policies, such as fundamental tax reform, that will help 
     foster a stronger economy, greater opportunities and more job 
     creation.
       (b) Policy on Economic Growth and Job Creation.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution to promote faster economic growth 
     and job

[[Page H1924]]

     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 will 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 helping 
     the economy grow and expanding opportunity for all Americans.

     SEC. 804. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, and 
     promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The United 
     States tax code fails on all three counts: It is notoriously 
     complex, patently unfair, and highly inefficient. The tax 
     code's complexity distorts decisions to work, save, and 
     invest, which leads to slower economic growth, lower wages, 
     and less job creation.
       (2) Over the past decade alone, there have been 4,107 
     changes to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of the 
     major changes over the years have involved carving out 
     special preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various 
     activities or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 
     trillion per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and 
     highly complex.
       (3) In addition, these tax preferences are 
     disproportionately used by upper-income individuals.
       (4) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the 
     code end up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base, in 
     turn, requires much higher tax rates to raise a given amount 
     of revenue.
       (5) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up spending 
     $160 billion and roughly 6 billion hours a year complying 
     with the tax code waste of time and resources that could be 
     used in more productive activities.
       (6) Standard economic theory shows that high marginal tax 
     rates dampen the incentives to work, save, and invest, which 
     reduces economic output and job creation. Lower economic 
     output, in turn, mutes the intended revenue gain from higher 
     marginal tax rates.
       (7) Roughly half of 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 can reach nearly 45 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 slightly more than 39 
     percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Tax 
     rates this high suppress wages and discourage investment and 
     job creation, distort business activity, and put American 
     businesses at a competitive disadvantage with foreign 
     competitors.
       (9) By deterring potential investment, the 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 United States firms 
     twice, putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage 
     with competitors with more competitive international tax 
     systems.
       (11) Reforming the United States tax code to a more 
     competitive international system would boost the 
     competitiveness of United States companies operating abroad 
     and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
       (12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers through 
     lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and on investors 
     in diminished returns.
       (13) Revenues have averaged about 17.4 percent of the 
     economy throughout modern American history. Revenues rise 
     above this level under current law to 18.3 percent of the 
     economy by the end of the 10-year budget window.
       (14) Attempting to raise revenue through new tax increases 
     to meet out-of-control spending would sink the economy and 
     Americans' ability to save for their retirement and their 
     children's education.
       (15) This resolution also rejects the idea of instituting a 
     carbon tax in the United States, which some have offered as a 
     new source of revenue. Such a plan would damage the economy, 
     cost jobs, and raise prices on American consumers.
       (16) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not 
     constitute fundamental tax reform.
       (17) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate 
     loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the 
     board not to fund more wasteful Government spending. 
     Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
       (18) Many economists believe that fundamental tax reform 
     (i.e. a broader tax base and lower tax rates) would lead to 
     greater labor supply and increased investment, which, over 
     time, would have a positive impact on total national output.
       (19) Heretofore, the congressional scorekeepers the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation (JCT).
       (20) Static scoring implicitly assumes that the size of the 
     economy (and therefore key economic variables such as labor 
     supply and investment) remains fixed throughout the 
     considered budget horizon. This is an abstraction from 
     reality.
       (21) A new House rule was adopted at the beginning of the 
     114th Congress to help correct this problem. This rule 
     requires CBO and JCT to incorporate the macroeconomic effects 
     of major legislation into their official cost estimates.
       (22) This rule seeks to bridge the divide between static 
     estimates and scoring that incorporates economic feedback 
     effects by providing policymakers with a greater amount of 
     information about the likely economic impact of policies 
     under their consideration while at the same time preserving 
     traditional scoring methods and reporting conventions.
       (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should enact legislation that 
     provides for a comprehensive reform of the United States tax 
     code to promote economic growth, create American jobs, 
     increase wages, and benefit American consumers, investors, 
     and workers through fundamental tax reform that--
       (1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to American 
     families and businesses and reduces the amount of time and 
     resources necessary to comply with tax laws;
       (2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals and 
     consolidates the current seven individual income tax brackets 
     into fewer brackets;
       (3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
       (4) reduces the corporate tax rate; and
       (5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive system 
     of international taxation in a manner that does not 
     discriminate against any particular type of income or 
     industry.

     SEC. 805. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Opening foreign markets to American exports is vital to 
     the United States economy and beneficial to American workers 
     and consumers. The Commerce Department estimates that every 
     $1 billion of United States exports supports more than 5,000 
     jobs here at home.
       (2) The United States can increase economic opportunities 
     for American workers and businesses through the expansion of 
     trade, adherence to trade agreement rules by the United 
     States and its trading partners, and the elimination of 
     foreign trade barriers to United States goods and services.
       (3) Trade Promotion Authority is a bipartisan and bicameral 
     effort to strengthen the role of Congress in setting 
     negotiating objectives for trade agreements, to improve 
     consultation with Congress by the Administration, and to 
     provide a clear framework for congressional consideration and 
     implementation of trade agreements.
       (4) Global trade and commerce is not a zero-sum game. The 
     idea that global expansion tends to ``hollow out'' United 
     States operations is incorrect. Foreign-affiliate activity 
     tends to complement, not substitute for, key parent 
     activities in the United States such as employment, worker 
     compensation, and capital investment. When United States 
     headquartered multinationals invest and expand operations 
     abroad it often leads to more jobs and economic growth at 
     home.
       (5) Trade agreements have saved the average American family 
     of four more than $10,000 per year, as a result of lower 
     duties. Trade agreements also lower the cost of manufacturing 
     inputs by removing duties.
       (6) American businesses and workers have shown that, on a 
     level playing field, they can excel and surpass the 
     international competition.
       (7) When negotiating trade agreements, United States laws 
     on Intellectual Property (IP) protection should be used as a 
     benchmark for establishing global IP frameworks. Strong IP 
     protections have contributed significantly to the United 
     States status as a world leader in innovation across sectors, 
     including in the development of life-saving biologic 
     medicines. The data protections afforded to biologics in 
     United States law, including 12 years of data protection, 
     allow continued development of pioneering medicines to 
     benefit patients both in the United States and abroad. To 
     maintain the cycle of innovation and achieve truly 21st 
     century trade agreements, it is vital that our negotiators 
     insist on the highest standards for IP protections.
       (8) The status quo of the current tax code also undermines 
     the competitiveness of United States businesses and costs the 
     United States economy investment and jobs.
       (9) The United States currently has an antiquated system of 
     international taxation whereby United States multinationals 
     operating abroad pay both the foreign-country tax and United 
     States corporate taxes. They are essentially taxed twice. 
     This puts them at an obvious competitive disadvantage. A 
     modern and competitive international tax system would 
     facilitate global commerce for United States multinational 
     companies and would encourage foreign business investment and 
     job creation in the United States.
       (10) The ability to defer United States taxes on their 
     foreign operations, which

[[Page H1925]]

     some erroneously refer to as a ``tax loophole,'' cushions 
     this disadvantage to a certain extent. Eliminating or 
     restricting this provision (and others like it) would harm 
     United States competitiveness.
       (11) This budget resolution advocates fundamental tax 
     reform that would lower the United States corporate rate, now 
     the highest in the industrialized world, and switch to a more 
     competitive system of international taxation. This would make 
     the United States a much more attractive place to invest and 
     station business activity and would chip away at the 
     incentives for United States companies to keep their profits 
     overseas (because the United States corporate rate is so 
     high).
       (b) Policy on Trade.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution to pursue international trade, global commerce, 
     and a modern and competitive United States international tax 
     system to promote job creation in the United States. The 
     United States should continue to seek increased economic 
     opportunities for American workers and businesses through the 
     expansion of trade opportunities, adherence to trade 
     agreements and rules by the United States and its trading 
     partners, and the elimination of foreign trade barriers to 
     United States goods and services by opening new markets and 
     by enforcing United States rights. To that end, Congress 
     should pass Trade Promotion Authority to strengthen the role 
     of Congress in setting negotiating objectives for trade 
     agreements, to improve consultation with Congress by the 
     Administration, and to provide a clear framework for 
     congressional consideration and implementation of trade 
     agreements.

     SEC. 806. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the 
     financial condition of Social Security becomes more 
     precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced:
       (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be 
     exhausted and program revenues will be unable to pay 
     scheduled benefits.
       (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and Survivors and 
     Disability Trust Funds will be exhausted, and program 
     revenues will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 2033, 
     benefits will be cut nearly 23 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 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections 
     find that Social Security will run cash deficits of more than 
     $2 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 CBO, between 1970 and 2012, the 
     number of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled 
     workers and their dependent family members) has increased by 
     more than 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 20 percent in 2016, devastating 
     individuals who need assistance the most.
       (7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed on a 
     bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan 
     Commission'' which helped to address Social Security 
     shortfalls for more than a generation.
       (8) Americans deserve action by the President, the House, 
     and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social Security. It 
     is critical that bipartisan action be taken to address the 
     looming insolvency of Social Security. In this spirit, this 
     resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to find solutions 
     by requiring policymakers to ensure that Social Security 
     remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution 
     assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
       (1) If in any year the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual Trustees Report 
     determines that the 75-year actuarial balance of the Social 
     Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the annual balance of 
     the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th year is in 
     deficit, the Board of Trustees should, 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 1 December of the same calendar year in 
     which the Board of Trustees submit their recommendations, the 
     President should promptly submit implementing legislation to 
     both Houses of Congress including his recommendations 
     necessary to achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and 
     a positive annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority 
     Leader of the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House 
     should 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 should report a bill, which should be 
     considered by the full House or Senate under expedited 
     procedures.
       (4) Legislation submitted by the President should--
       (A) protect those in or near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who count on Social 
     Security the most, including those with disabilities and 
     survivors;
       (C) improve fairness for participants;
       (D) reduce the burden on, and provide certainty for, future 
     generations; and
       (E) secure the future of the Disability Insurance program 
     while addressing the needs of those with disabilities today 
     and improving the determination process.
       (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution that Congress and the President should enact 
     legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability 
     Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should 
     not raid the Social Security retirement system without 
     reforms to the Disability Insurance system. This resolution 
     assumes reform that--
       (1) ensure benefits continue to be paid to individuals with 
     disabilities and their family members who rely on them;
       (2) prevents a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut;
       (3) makes the Disability Insurance program work better; and
       (4) promotes opportunity for those trying to return to 
     work.
       (d) Policy on Social Security Solvency.--Any legislation 
     that Congress considers to improve the solvency of the 
     Disability Insurance trust fund also must improve the long-
     term solvency of the combined Old Age and Survivors 
     Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund.

     SEC. 807. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPEALING THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   HEALTH CARE LAW AND PROMOTING REAL HEALTH CARE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The President's health care law put Washington's 
     priorities first, and not patients'. The Affordable Care Act 
     (ACA) has failed to reduce health care premiums as promised; 
     instead, the law mandated benefits and coverage levels, 
     denying patients the opportunity to choose the type of 
     coverage that best suits their health needs and driving up 
     health coverage costs. A typical family's health care 
     premiums were supposed to decline by $2,500 a year; instead, 
     according to the 2014 Employer Health Benefits Survey, health 
     care premiums have increased by 7 percent for individuals and 
     families since 2012.
       (2) The President pledged ``If you like your health care 
     plan, you can keep your health care plan.'' Instead, the 
     nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates 9 
     million Americans with employment-based health coverage will 
     lose those plans due to the President's health care law, 
     further limiting patient choice.
       (3) Then-Speaker of the House, Pelosi, said that the 
     President's health care law would create 4 million jobs over 
     the life of the law and almost 400,000 jobs immediately. 
     Instead, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
     reduction in hours worked due to Obamacare represents a 
     decline of about 2.0 to 2.5 million full-time equivalent 
     workers, compared with what would have occurred in the 
     absence of the law. The full impact on labor represents a 
     reduction in employment by 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent, while 
     additional studies show less modest results. A recent study 
     by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimates 
     that Obamacare will reduce employment by up to 3 percent, or 
     about 4 million full-time equivalent workers.
       (4) The President has charged the Independent Payment 
     Advisory Board, a panel of unelected bureaucrats, with 
     cutting Medicare by an additional $20.9 billion over the next 
     ten years, according to the President's most recent budget.
       (5) Since ACA was signed into law, the administration has 
     repeatedly failed to implement it as written. The President 
     has unilaterally acted to make a total of 28 changes, delays, 
     and exemptions. The President has signed into law another 17 
     changes made by Congress. The Supreme Court struck down the 
     forced expansion of Medicaid; ruled the individual 
     ``mandate'' could only be characterized as a tax to remain 
     constitutional;

[[Page H1926]]

     and rejected the requirement that closely held companies 
     provide health insurance to their employees if doing so 
     violates these companies' religious beliefs. Even now, almost 
     five years after enactment, the Supreme Court continues to 
     evaluate the legality of how the President's administration 
     has implemented the law. All of these changes prove the folly 
     underlying the entire program health care in the United 
     States cannot be run from a centralized bureaucracy.
       (6) The President's health care law is unaffordable, 
     intrusive, overreaching, destructive, and unworkable. The law 
     should be fully repealed, allowing for real, patient-centered 
     health care reform: the development of real health care 
     reforms that puts patients first, that make affordable, 
     quality health care available to all Americans, and that 
     build on the innovation and creativity of all the 
     participants in the health care sector.
       (b) Policy on Promoting Real Health Care Reform.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that the President's health care 
     law should be fully repealed and real health care reform 
     promoted in accordance with the following principles:
       (1) In general.--Health care reform should enhance 
     affordability, accessibility, quality, innovation, choices 
     and responsiveness in health care coverage for all Americans, 
     putting patients, families, and doctors in charge, not 
     Washington, DC. These reforms should encourage increased 
     competition and transparency. Under the President's health 
     care law, government controls Americans' health care choices. 
     Under true, patient-centered reform, Americans would.
       (2) Affordability.--Real reform should be centered on 
     ensuring that all Americans, no matter their age, income, or 
     health status, have the ability to afford health care 
     coverage. The health care delivery structure should be 
     improved, and individuals should not be priced out of the 
     health insurance market due to pre-existing conditions, but 
     nationalized health care is not only unnecessary to 
     accomplish this, it undermines the goal. Individuals should 
     be allowed to join together voluntarily to pool risk through 
     mechanisms such as Individual Membership Associations and 
     Small Employer Membership Associations.
       (3) Accessability.--Instead of Washington outlining for 
     Americans the ways they cannot use their health insurance, 
     reforms should make health coverage more portable. 
     Individuals should be able to own their insurance and have it 
     follow them in and out of jobs throughout their career. Small 
     business owners should be permitted to band together across 
     State lines through their membership in bona fide trade or 
     professional associations to purchase health coverage for 
     their families and employees at a low cost. This will 
     increase small businesses' bargaining power, volume 
     discounts, and administrative efficiencies while giving them 
     freedom from State-mandated benefit packages. Also, insurers 
     licensed to sell policies in one State should be permitted to 
     offer them to residents in any other State, and consumers 
     should be permitted to shop for health insurance across State 
     lines, as they are with other insurance products online, by 
     mail, by phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent.
       (4) Quality.--Incentives for providers to deliver high-
     quality, responsive, and coordinated care will promote 
     patient outcomes and drive down health care costs. likewise, 
     reforms that work to restore the patient-physician 
     relationship by reducing administrative burdens and allowing 
     physicians to do what they do best: care for patients
       (5) Choices.--Individuals and families should be free to 
     secure the health care coverage that best meets their needs, 
     rather than instituting one-size-fits-all directives from 
     Federal bureaucracies such as the Internal Revenue Service, 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
     Independent Payment Advisory Board.
       (6) Innovation.--Instead of stifling innovation in health 
     care technologies, treatments, medications, and therapies 
     with Federal mandates, taxes, and price controls, a reformed 
     health care system should encourage research, development and 
     innovation.
       (7) Responsiveness.--Reform should return authority to 
     States wherever possible to make the system more responsive 
     to patients and their needs. Instead of tying States' hands 
     with Federal requirements for their Medicaid programs, the 
     Federal Government should return control of this program to 
     the States. Not only does the current Medicaid program drive 
     up Federal debt and threaten to bankrupt State budgets, but 
     States are better positioned to provide quality, affordable 
     care to those who are eligible for the program and to track 
     down and weed out waste, fraud and abuse. Beneficiary choices 
     in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and 
     Medicaid should be improved. States should make available the 
     purchase of private insurance as an option to their Medicaid 
     and SCHIP populations (though they should not require 
     enrollment).
       (8) Reforms.--Reforms should be made to prevent lawsuit 
     abuse and curb the practice of defensive medicine, which are 
     significant drivers increasing health care costs. The burden 
     of proof in medical malpractice cases should be based on 
     compliance with best practice guidelines, and States should 
     be free to implement those policies to best suit their needs.

     SEC. 808. 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 
     Medicare Trustees Report--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2030 and unable to pay scheduled benefits;
       (B) Medicare enrollment is expected to increase by over 50 
     percent in the next two decades, as 10,000 baby boomers reach 
     retirement age each day;
       (C) enrollees remain in Medicare three times longer than at 
     the outset of the program;
       (D) current workers' payroll contributions pay for current 
     beneficiaries;
       (E) in 2013, the ratio was 3.2 workers per beneficiary, but 
     this falls to 2.3 in 2030 and continues to decrease over 
     time;
       (F) most Medicare beneficiaries receive about three dollars 
     in Medicare benefits for every one dollar paid into the 
     program; and
       (G) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy 
     and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6.5 
     percent per year over the next 10 years. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office's 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook, 
     spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent of gross 
     domestic product (GDP) by 2043 and 9.3 percent of GDP by 
     2089.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to preserve the program for those in or near 
     retirement and strengthen Medicare for future beneficiaries.
       (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) permanent reform of the sustainable growth rate is 
     responsibly accounted for to ensure physicians continue to 
     participate in the Medicare program and provide quality 
     health care for beneficiaries;
       (3) when future generations 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;
       (4) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-service as a 
     plan option;
       (5) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower 
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks; and
       (6) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
     Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

     SEC. 809. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAL DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, 
                   DELIVERY AND INNOVATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For decades, the Nation's commitment to the discovery, 
     development, and delivery of new treatments and cures has 
     made the United States the biomedical innovation capital of 
     the world, bringing life-saving drugs and devices to patients 
     and well over a million high-paying jobs to local 
     communities.
       (2) Thanks to the visionary and determined leadership of 
     innovators throughout America, including industry, academic 
     medical centers, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
     the United States has led the way in early discovery. The 
     United States leadership role is being threatened, however, 
     as other countries contribute more to basic research from 
     both public and private sources.
       (3) The Organisation for Economic Development and 
     Cooperation predicts that China, for example, will outspend 
     the United States in total research and development by the 
     end of the decade.
       (4) Federal policies should foster innovation in health 
     care, not stifle it. America should maintain its world 
     leadership in medical science by encouraging competitive 
     forces to work through the marketplace in delivering cures 
     and therapies to patients.
       (5) Too often the bureaucracy and red-tape in Washington 
     hold back medical innovation and prevent new lifesaving 
     treatments from reaching patients. This resolution recognizes 
     the valuable role of the NIH and the indispensable 
     contributions to medical research coming from outside 
     Washington.
       (6) America is the greatest, most innovative Nation on 
     Earth. Her people are innovators, entrepreneurs, visionaries, 
     and relentless builders of the future. Americans were 
     responsible for the first telephone, the first airplane, the 
     first computer, for putting the first man on the moon, for 
     creating the first vaccine for polio and for legions of other 
     scientific and medical breakthroughs that have improved and 
     prolonged human health and life for countless people in 
     America and around the world.
       (b) Policy on Medical Innovation.--
       (1) It is the policy of this resolution to support the 
     important work of medical innovators throughout the country, 
     including private-sector innovators, medical centers and the 
     National Institutes of Health.

[[Page H1927]]

       (2) At the same time, the budget calls for continued strong 
     funding for the agencies that engage in valuable research and 
     development, while also urging Washington to get out of the 
     way of researchers, discoverers and innovators all over the 
     country.

     SEC. 810. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY REFORM.

       (a) Findings.-- The House finds the following:
       (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job 
     creation and dampened the economy, slowing the Nation's 
     recovery from the economic recession.
       (2) Since President Obama's inauguration in 2009, the 
     administration has issued more than 468,500 pages of 
     regulations in the Federal Register including 70,066 pages in 
     2014.
       (3) The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the 
     total cost of regulations is as high as $2.03 trillion per 
     year. Since 2009, the White House has generated more than 
     $494 billion in regulatory activity, with an additional $87.6 
     billion in regulatory costs currently pending.
       (4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation (Public 
     Law 111-203) has resulted in more than $32 billion in 
     compliance costs and saddled job creators with more than 63 
     million hours of compliance paperwork.
       (5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to date has 
     added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance paperwork, 
     imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs on the private 
     sector and an $8 billion cost burden on the States.
       (6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations 
     are primarily targeted at the coal industry. In June 2014, 
     the EPA proposed a rule to cut carbon pollution from the 
     Nation's power plants. The proposed standards are 
     unachievable with current commercially available technology, 
     resulting in a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power plants.
       (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly 40 percent of 
     the United States electricity at a low cost. Unfairly 
     targeting the coal industry with costly and unachievable 
     regulations will increase energy prices, disproportionately 
     disadvantaging energy-intensive industries like manufacturing 
     and construction, and will make life more difficult for 
     millions of low-income and middle class families already 
     struggling to pay their bills.
       (8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being retired 
     or converted as a result of EPA regulations. Combined with 
     the de-facto prohibition on new plants, these retirements and 
     conversions may further increase the cost of electricity.
       (9) A recent study by the energy market analysis group 
     Energy Ventures Analysis Inc. estimates the average energy 
     bill in West Virginia will rise $750 per household by 2020, 
     due in part to EPA regulations. West Virginia receives 95 
     percent of its electricity from coal.
       (10) The Heritage Foundation found that a phase-out of coal 
     would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 2023, resulting in an 
     aggregate gross domestic product decrease of $2.23 trillion 
     over the entire period and reducing the income of a family of 
     four by $1,200 per year. Of these jobs, 330,000 will come 
     from the manufacturing sector, with California, Texas, Ohio, 
     Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, North 
     Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the highest job 
     losses.
       (b) Policy on Federal Regulatory Reform.--It is the policy 
     of this resolution that Congress should, in consultation with 
     the public burdened by excessive regulation, enact 
     legislation that--
       (1) promotes economic growth and job creation by 
     eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and 
     simplifying Federal regulations;
       (2) requires the implementation of a regulatory budget to 
     be allocated amongst Government agencies, which would require 
     congressional approval and limit the maximum costs of 
     regulations in a given year;
       (3) requires congressional approval of all new major 
     regulations (those with an impact of $100 million or more) 
     before enactment as opposed to current law in which Congress 
     must expressly disapprove of regulation to prevent it from 
     becoming law, which would keep Congress engaged as to pending 
     regulatory policy and prevent costly and unsound policies 
     from being implemented and becoming effective;
       (4) requires a three year retrospective cost-benefit 
     analysis of all new major regulations, to ensure that 
     regulations operate as intended;
       (5) reinforces the requirement of regulatory impact 
     analysis for regulations proposed by executive branch 
     agencies but also expands the requirement to independent 
     agencies so that by law they consider the costs and benefits 
     of proposed regulations rather than merely being encouraged 
     to do so as is current practice; and
       (6) requires a formal rulemaking process for all major 
     regulations, which would increase transparency over the 
     process and allow interested parties to communicate their 
     views on proposed legislation to agency officials.

     SEC. 811. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 
                   DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings on Higher Education.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) A well-educated workforce is critical to economic, job, 
     and wage growth.
       (2) Roughly 20 million students are enrolled in American 
     colleges and universities.
       (3) Over the past decade, tuition and fees have been 
     growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2004-2005 
     Academic Year and the 2014-2015 Academic Year--
       (A) published tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 3.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation;
       (B) published tuition and fees at public two-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 2.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation; and
       (C) published tuition and fees at private nonprofit 4-year 
     colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 2.2 
     percent per year above the rate of inflation.
       (4) Federal financial aid for higher education has also 
     seen a dramatic increase. The portion of the Federal student 
     aid portfolio composed of Direct Loans, Federal Family 
     Education Loans, and Perkins Loans with outstanding balances 
     grew by 119 percent between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 
     2014.
       (5) This spending has failed to make college more 
     affordable.
       (6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama 
     noted: ``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 now stands at nearly $1.2 
     trillion. This makes student loans the second largest balance 
     of consumer debt, 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 2017 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 
     $5,775 in each year of the budget window; and
       (4) removing regulatory barriers in higher education that 
     act to restrict flexibility and innovative teaching, 
     particularly as it relates to non-traditional models such as 
     online coursework and competency-based learning.
       (c) Findings on Workforce Development.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) 8.7 million Americans are currently unemployed.
       (2) Despite billions of dollars in spending, those looking 
     for work are stymied by a broken workforce development system 
     that fails to connect workers with assistance and employers 
     with trained personnel.
       (3) The House Education and Workforce Committee 
     successfully consolidated 15 job training programs in the 
     recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
       (d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution to address the failings in the current 
     workforce development system, by--
       (1) further streamlining and consolidating Federal job 
     training programs; and
       (2) empowering states with the flexibility to tailor 
     funding and programs to the specific needs of their 
     workforce, including the development of career scholarships.

     SEC. 812. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For years, there has been serious concern regarding the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bureaucratic 
     mismanagement and continuous failure to provide veterans 
     timely access to health care and benefits.
       (2) In 2014, reports started breaking across the Nation 
     that VA medical centers were manipulating wait-list documents 
     to hide long delays veterans were facing to receive health 
     care. The VA hospital scandal led to the immediate 
     resignation of then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. 
     Shinseki.
       (3) In 2015, for the first time ever, VA health care was 
     added to the ``high-risk'' list of the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO), due to management and oversight 
     failures that have directly resulted in risks to the 
     timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and quality of health care.
       (4) In response to the scandal, the House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs held several oversight hearings and 
     ultimately enacted the Veterans' Access, Choice and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (VACAA) (Public Law 113-146) to 
     address these problems. VACAA provided $15 billion in 
     emergency resources to fund internal health care needs within 
     the department and provided veterans enhanced access to 
     private-sector health care under the new Veterans Choice 
     Program.
       (b) Policy on the Department of Veterans Affairs.--This 
     budget supports the continued oversight efforts by the House 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs to ensure the VA is not only 
     transparent and accountable, but also successful in achieving 
     its goals in providing timely health care and benefits to 
     America's veterans. The Budget Committee will continue to 
     closely monitor

[[Page H1928]]

     the VA's progress to ensure resources provided by Congress 
     are sufficient and efficiently used to provide needed 
     benefits and services to veterans.

     SEC. 813. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL ACCOUNTING 
                   METHODOLOGIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Given the thousands of Federal programs and trillions 
     of dollars the Federal Government spends each year, assessing 
     and accounting for Federal fiscal activities and liabilities 
     is a complex undertaking.
       (2) Current methods of accounting leave much to be desired 
     in capturing the full scope of government and in presenting 
     information in a clear and compelling way that illuminates 
     the best options going forward.
       (3) Most fiscal analysis produced by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) is conducted over a relatively short time 
     horizon: 10 or 25 years. While this time frame is useful for 
     most purposes, it fails to consider the fiscal consequences 
     over the longer term.
       (4) Additionally, current accounting methodology does not 
     provide an analysis of how the Federal Government's fiscal 
     situation over the long run affects Americans of various age 
     cohorts.
       (5) Another consideration is how Federal programs should be 
     accounted for. The ``accrual method'' of accounting records 
     revenue when it is earned and expenses when they are 
     incurred, while the ``cash method'' records revenue and 
     expenses when cash is actually paid or received.
       (6) The Federal budget accounts for most programs using 
     cash accounting. Some programs, however, particularly loan 
     and loan guarantee programs, are accounted for using accrual 
     methods.
       (7) GAO has indicated that accrual accounting may provide a 
     more accurate estimation of the Federal Government's 
     liabilities than cash accounting for some programs 
     specifically those that provide some form of insurance.
       (8) Where accrual accounting is used, it is almost 
     exclusively calculated by CBO according to the methodology 
     outlined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). CBO 
     uses fair value methodology instead of FCRA to measure the 
     cost of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example.
       (9) FCRA methodology, however, understates the risk and 
     thus the true cost of Federal programs. An alternative is 
     fair value methodology, which uses discount rates that 
     incorporate the risk inherent to the type of liability being 
     estimated in addition to Treasury discount rates of the 
     proper maturity length.
       (10) The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that 
     ``adopting a fair-value approach would provide a more 
     comprehensive way to measure the costs of Federal credit 
     programs and would permit more level comparisons between 
     those costs and the costs of other forms of federal 
     assistance'' than the current approach under FCRA.
       (b) Policy on Federal Accounting Methodologies.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that Congress should, in 
     consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     public affected by Federal budgetary choices, adopt 
     Governmentwide reforms of budget and accounting practices so 
     the American people and their representatives can more 
     readily understand the fiscal situation of the Government of 
     the United States and the options best suited to improving 
     it. Such reforms may include but should not be limited to the 
     following:
       (1) Providing additional metrics to enhance our current 
     analysis by considering our fiscal situation comprehensively, 
     over an extended time horizon, and as it affects Americans of 
     various age cohorts.
       (2) Expanding the use of accrual accounting where 
     appropriate.
       (3) Accounting for certain Federal credit programs using 
     fair value accounting as opposed to the current approach 
     under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

     SEC. 814. POLICY STATEMENT ON SCOREKEEPING FOR OUTYEAR 
                   BUDGETARY EFFECTS IN APPROPRIATION ACTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     directs the Committee on the Budget to provide an allocation 
     of budgetary resources to the Committee on Appropriations for 
     the budget year covered by a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       (2) The allocation of budgetary resources provided by the 
     Committee on the Budget to the Committee on Appropriations 
     covers a period of one fiscal year only, which is effective 
     for the budget year.
       (3) An appropriation Act, joint resolution, amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon may contain changes to 
     programs that result in direct budgetary effects that occur 
     beyond the budget year and beyond the period for which the 
     allocation of budgetary resources provided by the Committee 
     on the Budget is effective.
       (4) The allocation of budgetary resources provided to the 
     Committee on Appropriations does not currently anticipate or 
     capture direct outyear budgetary effects to programs.
       (5) Budget enforcement could be improved by capturing the 
     direct outyear budgetary effects caused by appropriation Acts 
     and using this information to determine the appropriate 
     allocations of budgetary resources to the Committee on 
     Appropriations when considering future concurrent resolutions 
     on the budget.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of the House of 
     Representatives to more effectively allocate budgetary 
     resources and accurately enforce budget targets by agreeing 
     to a procedure by which the Committee on the Budget should 
     consider the direct outyear budgetary effects of changes to 
     mandatory programs enacted in appropriations bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments thereto or conference reports thereon 
     when setting the allocation of budgetary resources for the 
     Committee on Appropriations in a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget. The relevant committees of jurisdiction are directed 
     to consult on a procedure during fiscal year 2016 and include 
     recommendations for implementing such procedure in the fiscal 
     year 2017 concurrent resolution on the budget.

     SEC. 815. POLICY STATEMENT ON REDUCING UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, 
                   AND UNAUTHORIZED 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 its report to Congress on Government Efficiency and 
     Effectiveness, the Comptroller General has stated that 
     addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs could ``lead to tens of billions of dollars 
     of additional savings.''
       (3) In 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 the GAO issued reports 
     showing excessive duplication and redundancy in Federal 
     programs including--
       (A) two hundred nine Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics education programs in 13 different Federal 
     agencies at a cost of $3 billion annually;
       (B) two hundred separate Department of Justice crime 
     prevention and victim services grant programs with an annual 
     cost of $3.9 billion in 2010;
       (C) twenty 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) seventeen separate Homeland Security preparedness grant 
     programs that spent $37 billion between fiscal year 2011 and 
     2012;
       (E) fourteen grant and loan programs, and three tax 
     benefits to reduce diesel emissions;
       (F) ninety-four different initiatives run by 11 different 
     agencies to encourage ``green building'' in the private 
     sector; and
       (G) twenty-three agencies implemented approximately 670 
     renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of 
     nearly $15 billion.
       (4) The Federal Government spends more than $80 billion 
     each year for approximately 1,400 information technology 
     investments. GAO has identified broad acquisition failures, 
     waste, and unnecessary duplication in the Government's 
     information technology infrastructure. experts have estimated 
     that eliminating these problems could save 25 percent or $20 
     billion.
       (5) GAO has identified strategic sourcing as a potential 
     source of spending reductions. In 2011 GAO estimated that 
     saving 10 percent of the total or all Federal procurement 
     could generate more than $50 billion in savings annually.
       (6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $106 billion in 
     improper payments in fiscal year 2013.
       (7) Under clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least 
     one hearing during each 120 day period following its 
     establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in 
     Government programs.
       (8) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal 
     year 2015, 32 laws will expire, possibly resulting in $693 
     billion in unauthorized appropriations. Timely 
     reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of 
     program justification and effectiveness.
       (9) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs should result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy on Reducing Unnecessary, Wasteful, and 
     Unauthorized Spending.--
       (1) Each authorizing committee annually should 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.
       (2) Committees of jurisdiction should review all 
     unauthorized programs funded through annual appropriations to 
     determine if the programs are operating efficiently and 
     effectively.
       (3) Committees should reauthorize those programs that in 
     the committees' judgment should continue to receive funding.
       (4) For those programs not reauthorized by committees, the 
     House of Representatives should enforce the limitations on 
     funding such unauthorized programs in the House rules. If the 
     strictures of the rules are deemed to be too rapid in 
     prohibiting spending on unauthorized programs, then milder 
     measures should be adopted and enforced until a return to the 
     full prohibition of clause 2(a)(1) of rule XXI of the Rules 
     of the House.

     SEC. 816. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                   CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

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

[[Page H1929]]

       (1) According to the most recent estimate from the Office 
     of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were expected to 
     hold $844 billion in unobligated balances at the close of 
     fiscal year 2015.
       (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending 
     previously made available by Congress that remains available 
     for expenditure.
       (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 canceling unobligated 
     balances of funds that are no longer needed.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
     Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees should 
     through their oversight activities identify and achieve 
     savings through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated 
     balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 
     Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under 
     programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national 
     security, and Treasury authority to finance the national 
     debt.
       (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of 
     the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, 
     and other appropriate agencies should continue to make it a 
     high priority to review unobligated balances and identify 
     savings for deficit reduction.

     SEC. 817. POLICY STATEMENT ON AGENCY FEES AND SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) A number of Federal agencies and organizations have 
     permanent authority to collect fees and other offsetting 
     collections and to spend these collected funds.
       (2) The total amount of offsetting fees and offsetting 
     collections is estimated by the Office of Management and 
     Budget to be $525 billion in fiscal year 2016.
       (3) Agency budget justifications are, in some cases, not 
     fully transparent about the amount of program activity funded 
     through offsetting collections or fees. This lack of 
     transparency prevents effective and accountable government.
       (b) Policy on Agency Fees and Spending.--It is the policy 
     of this resolution that Congress must reassert its 
     constitutional prerogative to control spending and conduct 
     oversight. To do so, Congress should enact legislation 
     requiring programs that are funded through fees, offsetting 
     receipts, or offsetting collections to be allocated new 
     budget authority annually. Such allocation may arise from--
       (1) legislation originating from the authorizing committee 
     of jurisdiction for the agency or program; or
       (2) fee and account specific allocations included in annual 
     appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 818. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF 
                   TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

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

     SEC. 819. POLICY STATEMENT ON ``NO BUDGET, NO PAY''.

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

     SEC. 820. POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Russian aggression, the growing threats of the Islamic 
     State of Iraq and the Levant in the Middle East, North Korean 
     and Iranian nuclear and missile programs, and continued 
     Chinese investments in high-end military capabilities and 
     cyber warfare shape the parameters of an increasingly complex 
     and challenging security environment.
       (2) All four current service chiefs testified that the 
     National Military Strategy could not be executed at 
     sequestration levels.
       (3) The independent and bipartisan National Defense Panel 
     conducted risk assessments of force structure changes 
     triggered by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) and 
     concluded that in addition to previous cuts to defense dating 
     back to 2009, the sequestration of defense discretionary 
     spending has ``caused significant shortfalls in U.S. military 
     readiness and both present and future capabilities''.
       (4) The President's fiscal year 2016 budget irresponsibly 
     ignores current law and requests a defense budget $38 billion 
     above the caps for rhetorical gain. By creating an 
     expectation of spending without a plan to avoid the BCA's 
     guaranteed sequester upon breaching of its caps, the White 
     House's proposal compounds the fiscal uncertainty that has 
     affected the military's ability to adequately plan for future 
     contingencies and make investments crucial for the Nation's 
     defense.
       (5) The President's budget proposes $1.8 trillion in tax 
     increases, in addition to the $1.7 trillion in tax hikes the 
     Administration has already imposed. The President's tax 
     increases would further burden economic growth and is not a 
     realistic source for offsets to fund defense sequester 
     replacement.
       (b) Policy on Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Funding.--
     In fiscal year 2015, the House-passed budget resolution 
     anticipated $566 billion for national defense in the 
     discretionary base budget for fiscal year 2016. With no 
     necessary statutory change yet provided by Congress, the BCA 
     statute would require limiting national defense discretionary 
     base funding to $523 billion in fiscal year 2016. However, in 
     total with $90 billion, the House Budget estimate for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations funding for the Department of 
     Defense, the fiscal year 2016 budget provides over $613 
     billion total for defense spending that is higher than the 
     President's budget request for the fiscal year. This 
     concurrent resolution provides $22 billion above the 
     President's Five Year Defense Plan and $151 billion above the 
     10-year totals. This would also be $387 billion above the 10-
     year total for current levels.
       (c) Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund.--(1) The 
     budget resolution recognizes the need to ensure robust 
     funding for national defense while maintaining overall fiscal 
     discipline. The budget resolution prioritizes our national 
     defense and the needs of the warfighter by providing needed 
     dollars through the creation of the ``Defense Readiness and 
     Modernization Fund''.
       (2) The Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund provides 
     the mechanism for Congress to responsibly allocate in a 
     deficit-neutral way the resources the military needs to 
     secure the safety and liberty of United States citizens from 
     threats at home and abroad. The Defense Readiness and 
     Modernization Fund will provide the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House the ability to increase allocations 
     to support legislation that would provide for the Department 
     of Defense warfighting capabilities, modernization, a 
     temporary increase in end strength, training and maintenance 
     associated with combat readiness, activities to reach full 
     auditability of the Department of Defense's financial 
     statements, and implementation of military and compensation 
     reforms.
       (d) Sequester Replacement for National Defense.--This 
     concurrent resolution encourages an immediate reevaluation of 
     Federal Government priorities to maintain the strength of 
     America's national security posture. In identifying policies 
     to restructure and stabilize the Government's major 
     entitlement programs which, along with net interest, will 
     consume all Federal revenue in less than 20 years. The budget 
     also charts a course that can ensure the availability of 
     needed national security resources.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in House Report 114-49.
  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.
  If more than one such amendment is adopted, then only the one 
receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered 
as finally adopted.
  In the case of a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, 
then only the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative 
votes shall be considered as finally adopted.

[[Page H1930]]

  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.

                              {time}  1330


  amendment no. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. ellison

  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina). It is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 114-49.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), I have an amendment at the desk, and I rise to 
offer an alternative budget on behalf of the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2016.

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016 
     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal year 2015 and for fiscal years 2017 through 
     2025.
       (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 2016.

                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 III--MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Point of order against advance appropriations.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2015 through 2025:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,397,906,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,011,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,363,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,484,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,611,419,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,764,354,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,936,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,113,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,305,297,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,511,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,723,308,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: -$29,871,00,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $340,098,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $611,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $639,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $656,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $686,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $722,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $760,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $794,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $836,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $868,535,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,364,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,700,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,671,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,715,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,879,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,055,790,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,200,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,434,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,575,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,705,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,935,827,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,307,153,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,688,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,630,273,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,676,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,851,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,012,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,165,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,401,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,524,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,636,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,881,361,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     (on-budget) are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: -$909,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$677,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$266,584,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$191,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$240,561,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$247,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$228,570,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$287,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$218,934,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$125,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: -$158,053,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The budgetary levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,874,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $20,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,607,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $21,522,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $21,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $22,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $22,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $23,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $23,610,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The budgetary levels of debt 
     held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,088,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $15,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $16,156,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $16,613,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $17,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $17,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $17,867,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the budgetary 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $596,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $590,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $540,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $555,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $560,791,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $552,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $562,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $586,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $600,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $615,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $605,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $630,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $615,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $648,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $627,135,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $664,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $647,739,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $64,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $58,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,004,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,796,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,995,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,494,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,155,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,905,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,907,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $33,555,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,588,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $37,823,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,918,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,815,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,054,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,282,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,588,000,000.

[[Page H1931]]

       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,156,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,477,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,349,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $13,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $19,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,526,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,494,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,771,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,596,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,511,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,331,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,185,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,978,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $40,203,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $45,346,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,757,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,788,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,699,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,509,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,023,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,718,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $20,856,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $19,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,444,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,083,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,512,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,062,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,142,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,934,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority -$13,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $22,596,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,784,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,396,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,413,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,809,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,651,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,995,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $160,537,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $201,058,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $205,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $171,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $168,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,356,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $150,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $156,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,880,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,363,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $157,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,022,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,484,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $169,482,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $21,665,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $19,549,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,631,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,116,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,773,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,473,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,530,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,273,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,008,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,686,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,534,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,108,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $272,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $272,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $328,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $323,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $195,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $171,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $168,570,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $172,246,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $177,659,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $176,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $181,815,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $186,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $184,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $190,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $188,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,490,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $495,569,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $486,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $534,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $541,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $585,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:

[[Page H1932]]

       (A) New budget authority, $609,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $610,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,934,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $634,452,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $666,788,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $657,365,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $690,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $690,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $726,916,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $726,254,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $763,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $762,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $802,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $801,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $840,653,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $839,972,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $542,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $541,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $581,875,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $581,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $581,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $589,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $589,302,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $656,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $655,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $700,224,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $700,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $748,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $748,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $843,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $843,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $864,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $863,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $876,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $875,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $972,674,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $977,111,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $614,473,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $602,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $664,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $655,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $648,386,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $636,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $661,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $684,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $677,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $703,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $697,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $728,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $727,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $747,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $740,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $768,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $755,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $795,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $787,126,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $31,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $33,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $160,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,625,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $181,292,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $184,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $180,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,790,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,649,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $193,880,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,924,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $197,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $211,288,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $210,116,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,612,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $206,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $204,371,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $220,777,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $218,909,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $59,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $77,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,470,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,460,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,698,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,856,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,860,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $24,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,831,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $25,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,908,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,830,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,631,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,106,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,151,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $326,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $326,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $377,249,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $430,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $430,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $499,872,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $499,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,611,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $557,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $608,177,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $608,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $645,267,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $645,267,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $682,266,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $682,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $716,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $716,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $742,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $742,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $760,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $760,812,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority $5,709,000,000.

[[Page H1933]]

       (B) Outlays, $5,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $7,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,849,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,043,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,633,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,868,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,855,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$13,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$13,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,146,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,881,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$12,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$13,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$13,025,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority -$106,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$106,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$78,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$93,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$89,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$89,327,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$95,188,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$95,188,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$97,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$97,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$102,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$102,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$105,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$105,007,000,000.

                 TITLE II--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 201. DIRECT SPENDING.

       (a) Means-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For means-tested direct spending, the average rate of 
     growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 11-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.1 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending:
       (A) The People's Budget implements a new tax credit to 
     reward Americans for their hard work. This policy would 
     provide a refundable tax credit for two years for up to $800 
     for working individuals earning less than $95,000 and up to 
     $1200 for households earning less than $190,000. Modeled off 
     the Making Work Pay tax credit, this targeted tax credit 
     would immediately raise disposable income for low and middle-
     income families.
       (B) The People's Budget adopts President Obama's Earned 
     Income Tax Credit (EITC) to expand eligibility, including for 
     childless workers. Continues enhanced credits originally 
     implemented under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     to target those most in need. This includes extending the 
     Child and Dependent Care Credit and the American Opportunity 
     Tax Credit through 2024.
       (C) The People's Budget includes the President's proposal 
     to boost the Child Tax Credit maximum deduction to $3,000. It 
     makes key expansions permanent to protect 50 million 
     Americans who would otherwise be at jeopardy for losing part 
     or all of their EITC or CTC.
       (D) The People's Budget creates a debt free college that 
     provides Federal matching program to supports state efforts 
     to expand investments in higher education, bring down costs 
     for students, and increase aid to students to help them cover 
     the total cost of college attendance without taking on debt. 
     The program would encourage innovation by states and colleges 
     to improve efficiency and enable speedy and less-costly 
     degree completion. By treating higher education as a public 
     good worth investing in, we can once again make higher 
     education accessible to all.
       (E) The People's Budget allows students refinance their 
     student loans at low rates and allows private borrowers to 
     shift to more affordable government loans. Allowing student 
     borrowers to reduce the value of their debt will free up 
     income for purchases and will create a job-creating ripple 
     effect throughout the entire economy.
       (F) The People's Budget restores cuts made to the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and 
     permanently adopts the enhanced levels established in the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The vast majority of 
     SNAP recipients are households with children, seniors and 
     individuals with disabilities, but recent cuts lowered 
     average benefits by $216 in 2014. Providing families with 
     basic food security through SNAP is one of the most effective 
     ways the Federal Government can stimulate the economy.
       (G) The People's Budget provides an additional $10 billion 
     for child nutrition programs including program expansion and 
     improvements for summer meals; essential improvements and 
     expansion funding for preschool nutrition including increases 
     in meal reimbursements to fulfill the new meal pattern, an 
     additional meal or snack for children in long-term care, and 
     expanded program eligibility; and investments in school meals 
     and school kitchens.
       (H) The People's Budget replaces the 40 percent excise tax 
     with a public option to allow the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services to offer a public insurance option within the 
     health insurance marketplaces. This ensures choice, 
     competition, and stability in coverage. The Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) estimates the premium costs for Americans 
     under the public option will be 7 to 8 percent lower than 
     costs in private exchange plans. The repeal of the excise tax 
     costs $87 billion while savings from the public option are 
     $218 billion.
       (I) The People's Budget continues funding for the entire 
     CHIP program until 2019.
       (J) The People's Budget protects States programs by fully 
     retaining maintenance of effort requirements and eliminating 
     any States ability to arbitrarily implement enrollment caps. 
     Without action, Federal funding for CHIP will expire 
     jeopardizing the health care coverage of more than 10 million 
     children and pregnant women.
       (K) The People's Budget permits the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services (HHS) to negotiate prescription drug prices 
     with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Giving HHS the ability to 
     negotiate prices, as the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     currently does, will save Medicare $157 billion and will 
     reduce costs for seniors.
       (b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For non means-tested direct spending, the average rate 
     of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 percent.
       (2) For non means-tested direct spending, the estimated 
     average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during 
     the 11-year period beginning with fiscal year 2014 is 5.5 
     percent under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for non means-tested direct spending:
       (A) The People's Budget allows those who have lost a job 
     through no fault of their own to claim up to 99 weeks of 
     unemployment benefits in high-unemployment states for up to 
     two years. According to the Economic Policy Institute, this 
     would boost real GDP growth by 0.4 percentage points and 
     increase employment by 539,000 jobs in 2015.
       (B) The People's Budget also adopts President Obama's 
     reforms to improve system solvencies and incentivize job 
     training.
       (C) The People's Budget includes funding to replace SGR 
     with a payment system that focuses on equity for primary care 
     and protections for low-income beneficiaries. The budget pays 
     for the reform through added overall revenues, which does not 
     require cost to be passed to Medicare beneficiaries in any 
     form.
       (D) The People's Budget improves the Affordable Care Act by 
     repealing the excise tax on high-priced health plans. 
     Proponents of the provision hoped that this tax would slow 
     the rate of growth of health costs, while raising revenue. 
     However, in an effort to avoid the tax, employers who 
     traditionally offer excellent benefits have started offering 
     less generous plans. This is an ineffective tool to bend the 
     cost curve. Since the tax is attached to premiums instead of 
     coverage it has the potential to hit plans it wasn't intended 
     to impact.
       (E) The People's Budget establishes a representative 
     democracy that truly reflects the diversity and values of our 
     nation by providing funding for the public financing of 
     campaigns. This gives a voice to small donors that have been 
     drowned out by dark money. Public financing keeps politicians 
     accountable to the voters that elect them instead of to 
     special interest money. In the era of the devastating 
     Citizens United decision, big money has taken the reins of 
     our election process. It is now more important than ever to 
     provide candidates with effective alternatives to finance 
     their campaigns.
       (F) The People's Budget uses the Experimental Price Index 
     for the Elderly (CPI-E) to calculate Cost of Living 
     Adjustments (COLA) for Federal retirement programs other than 
     Social Security. Affected programs include civil service 
     retirement, military retirement, Supplemental Security 
     Income, veteran's pensions and compensations. CPI-E is the 
     most sensible and accurate measure of the real costs that 
     seniors face in retirement, current underpricing of costs 
     amount to cutting benefits for those on fixed incomes.
       (G) The People's Budget makes a down payment of $820 
     billion to help close the nation's infrastructure deficit 
     while protecting against climate change and creating millions 
     of living wage jobs. The budget also helps boost private 
     financing for critical state and

[[Page H1934]]

     local projects by creating a public-private infrastructure 
     bank. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 
     estimates that the United States will need to invest upwards 
     of $1 trillion above current levels over the next decade just 
     to make required repairs to roads, bridges, water, and energy 
     systems.

              TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. 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 for 
     all programs administered by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs.
       (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 2016 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2016.

       Amend the title so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution 
     setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2016 and including the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal years 2017 
     through 2025.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 163, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to stand while using this visual aid so that I can show 
clearly that the people's budget--the people's budget which we will 
enter today and will have debate on right now--is the right budget for 
the American people because it puts the American people first.
  The people's budget has it firmly in mind, ``We, the people''; and so 
when we think about how we should pull together a plan for the Nation's 
spending and the Nation's receipts, revenue, and how we plan out what 
we are going to spend money on, this people's budget is the thing.
  Let me start just by talking about where we are now and how we must 
respond to the American people's needs.
  Corporations are pocketing record profits by driving down wages with 
one hand and increasing the cost of building basic building blocks of a 
happy life on the other. Where does that leave working families? 
Huddled around a dinner table with their paychecks, doing the math in 
their head, wondering if they can make ends meet this month.
  This shows, clearly, median income for all families down 8 percent 
between 2000 and 2012; price of rent is up; medical care is up; child 
care is up; higher education is way up.
  The people's budget responds directly to the needs of the American 
people, first, by putting forth the most important thing and what we 
believe is the most important metric and measurement of any budget: How 
many jobs do you create? The people's budget creates 8.4 million jobs 
and raises wages by: investing $820 billion in infrastructure and 
rebuilding our Nation's roads and bridges and our broadband and things 
like that; providing aid to States to help local governments rehire 
teachers, firefighters, police officers; supporting a minimum wage 
increase and increasing funding for worker protection agencies to 
enforce wage laws; and, finally, funding student loan programs that 
help businesses grow.
  The people's budget brings down the cost for the building blocks of 
the American Dream. At a time when too many young people are getting 
priced out of a college education situation, our budget offers debt-
free college for all; and for students who are already paying back 
their student loans, we offer affordable loan refinancing.
  To reduce health care costs, the people's budget removes the 40 
percent excise tax on high-cost health care plans and provides for a 
public option for consumers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that a public option would offer premiums that are 7 to 8 percent lower 
than those offered by private plans.
  To help parents take care of their children, our budget expands 
family tax credits and develops a fund to provide eligible low-income 
families with access to health care.
  At the bottom line, Madam Chair, is this: the richest nation in the 
history of the world at what may well be argued its richest point in 
its history should be a place where working people can look forward to 
an American Dream, where they don't have to huddle around the table at 
the end of the week and wonder if they are going to make it. So we 
offer the people's budget.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), my cochair.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I thank Mr. Ellison for yielding me the time.
  Madam Chair, in support of the people's budget, let me simply say, 
this budget places this Nation's greatest resource, its people, as the 
priority. It places value on the needs and hopes of regular working 
people in this country and the middle class, those aspiring to the 
middle class who are wanting to leave poverty and low-wage jobs behind.
  You are going to hear from our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle what a terrible scourge our people's budget is on raising taxes 
and spending, but our budget provides to the American people some very 
distinct and necessary support: jobs, it creates jobs; security in 
retirement and in difficult times for the American people; fair wages 
for a fair day's work; investments in our collective future: education, 
environment, children, and job training for the future; income 
stability and ending income inequality. Those are the priorities within 
the budget that reflect the needs of the American people. We offer 
opportunity to Americans who strive for a better life in this budget.
  Republicans are clearly angry that we are ending the special 
treatment of Wall Street buddies. Meanwhile, they have no problem at 
ending tax credits for low- and middle-income families. Among the few 
specific tax proposals in the House Republican budget is a promise to 
spend hundreds of billions on high-income and corporate tax cuts. The 
trickle down has not trickled, and we continue that process.
  Republicans are saying they are seeking to balance the budget. They 
are balancing this budget on the backs of the middle class, while 
cutting taxes for the wealthy and well connected, and getting to 
balance through irresponsible budget gimmicks.
  We close corporate loopholes. Offshore tax havens on profits are 
eliminated. We have a progressive tax rate for income above $1 million. 
Our budget is about the American people.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to commend our friends in the Progressive Caucus for bringing 
forward a budget. It is not necessarily an easy thing to do, and so we 
want to thank them for bringing their budget forward.
  There aren't many times in Congress when we actually get to compare 
like products to like products side by side, so I think it is important 
to compare exactly where this budget that is being proposed would take 
us. These are the three budgets that are going to be offered this 
afternoon by our friends on the other side of the aisle. The 
Progressive Caucus is the first one. So how does it compare to the 
budget, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America, that we have offered 
for this Chamber?
  First, taxes; their budget would increase taxes over $7 trillion over 
the next 10 years. Spending? Spending increases $9.3 trillion over our 
budget. Deficits? $2.4 trillion increase over the next 10 years. Debt? 
$2.8 trillion increase in debt over the Republican option, A Balanced 
Budget for a Stronger America. Defense; decreasing defense spending by 
$529 billion. When does it get to balance? Never. Never gets to 
balance.
  Actually, Madam Chair, it clearly is not the direction that the 
American people desire or the American people need. So we stand 
strongly in favor of A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control 
the time.

[[Page H1935]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?

  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the dean of the House of Representatives and my good friend.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I stand up to cheer for the Ellison-
Grijalva Progressive Caucus budget and what it stands for, and 
especially for the full employment bill that is woven inside this very 
spectacular budget.
  With 20 million Americans unemployed or underemployed or have given 
up, we put a fraction of a percent of tax on Wall Street speculators 
and fees on big polluters to finance more than a trillion dollars in 
investments to repair our roads and bridges, upgrade energy systems, 
and prepare our young people to thrive as citizens and workers. This 
budget will create 8.4 million jobs by 2018.
  I came to Congress a number of decades ago to fight for Dr. Martin 
Luther King's priorities: jobs, justice, and peace. The Progressive 
Caucus does it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, for the fifth year in a row, the Republicans have put 
forth a budget that devastates nondefense spending and dismantles 
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and aid to college students. It gives a 
$200,000 tax break to the wealthiest Americans while imposing a $2,000 
tax increase on working families. It abandons our critical national 
infrastructure and the jobs it could create. The Republican budget 
makes a clear choice: billionaires and corporations before working 
Americans and seniors.
  The Progressive Caucus people's budget offers a clear alternative. 
This budget creates 8.4 million jobs through investments in 
infrastructure, worker training, and clean energy. It repeals the 
devastating sequester cuts and gives the 46\1/2\ million Americans 
living in poverty a path back to prosperity. This alternative budget 
puts an end to a system where CEOs pay a lower tax rate than their 
secretaries. It closes tax loopholes that allow corporations to avoid 
taxes on overseas profits and makes it harder for American businesses 
to set up shop in low-tax countries.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. NADLER. It makes it harder for American businesses to set up shop 
in low-tax countries to lower their tax burden. It supports middle-
class families through paid parental leave, childcare, and debt-free 
college. It proves that Congress can pass a budget that supports 
working families and seniors, builds an economy that creates jobs and 
restores faith in the American Dream.
  I urge my colleagues to invest in this country and its people. 
Support the people's budget.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time both sides have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 7\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, even though I disagree heartily with the budgets 
advanced by the Progressive Caucus, they do an invaluable service to 
the budget debate by bringing into sharp relief two very different 
visions of governance advanced by the two parties.
  The Progressive budget is sincere and bold. Unfortunately, it is also 
wrong. It would hike taxes by $7 trillion over the next 10 years 
relative to the Republican budget, hike spending by $9.3 trillion, and 
run up $2.8 trillion more in debt than the Republican budget over 10 
years.
  Now, let's begin with a reality check here. Divide $1 trillion into 
the number of families in this country. Every trillion dollars we throw 
around here is roughly $8,000 taken from an average family's earnings. 
Some of that they see as direct taxes; some of that they see as 
increased prices or depressed wages as businesses pass along their 
costs to consumers and employees; but ultimately it is paid by working 
Americans because that is where the bulk of our economy rests.
  So $3.8 trillion in increased taxes means roughly $30,000 taken from 
the earnings of an average family over the next 10 years; $2.8 trillion 
in increased debt means another $22,000 of debt added to that family's 
obligations that they will have to pay in future taxes. We are told, 
well, don't worry, rich people will pay all those taxes. The problem 
is, there aren't enough rich people in the country to begin to make 
more than a dent in these numbers. It turns out, many of the so-called 
rich people aren't rich, and they aren't even people. They are 
struggling small businesses filing under subchapter S.
  And remember this dirty little secret of finance: businesses do not 
pay business taxes. The only three possible ways a business tax can be 
paid is by consumers through higher prices, by employees through lower 
wages, and by investors through lower earnings. That is your 401(k) or 
your pension plan that we are talking about.
  We are told, well, don't worry. We are using that money to create 
wealth and jobs. Well, the problem is government doesn't create wealth 
because government cannot inject a dollar into the economy until it has 
first taken that same dollar out of the economy. True, we see the job 
that government creates when it puts the dollar back in. What we don't 
see as clearly is the job that is lost when government first takes that 
dollar out of the economy.

                              {time}  1345

  We see those lost jobs in the lowest labor participation rate in 
nearly 40 years and in declining median incomes for working Americans.
  Here is what government can do--and what the Progressive Democratic 
budget proposes. It can transfer jobs from the private sector to the 
public sector by taxing one and expanding the other. It can transfer 
jobs from one sector of the private market to the other by taxing one 
and subsidizing the other.
  In fact, that is precisely the difference between Apple Computer and 
Solyndra. It is the difference between FedEx and the post office. It is 
the difference between the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. In 
fact, it has been estimated that if the Obama recovery had mirrored the 
Reagan recovery, millions more Americans would be working today, and 
family incomes would be thousands of dollars higher than they are 
today.
  But, of course, Reagan diagnosed the problem very differently than 
this administration. You remember his famous words: In this great 
economic crisis, government is not the solution to our problems--
government is the problem.
  He dramatically reduced the tax burden from 70 percent down to 28 
percent. He reduced spending by 2 percent of GDP. He rolled back many 
of the regulatory burdens imposed on our economy. And the result was 
one of the most dramatic and prolonged economic expansions in our 
Nation's history.
  And it wasn't just Reagan. We forget that after the 1994 
congressional election, Bill Clinton realized his policies weren't 
working. He came here to this floor in his State of the Union Address 
and proclaimed the era of Big Government is over. And he made good on 
that promise. He reached across the aisle to work with the Republican 
Congress and together they accomplished some amazing things.
  They reduced Federal spending by 4 percent of GDP. They approved what 
amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in American history. They 
dramatically reduced entitlement spending by--in Clinton's words--
``ending welfare as we know it.''
  The result was the only four budget surpluses in the last half 
century and another period of prolonged economic expansion. And the 
percentage of children living in poverty dropped dramatically.
  The budget reported by the House Budget Committee employs these 
principles that worked when Reagan and Clinton used them and worked 
when John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman and Warren Harding used them.
  The Republican House budget gradually reduces spending as a 
percentage

[[Page H1936]]

of GDP. It calls for a lower, flatter tax rate. It puts our Nation back 
on a course to a balanced budget. It saves Medicare from bankrupting 
and collapsing on an entire generation of Americans.
  It takes us off the path of debt and doubt and despair that this 
administration has dogmatically followed and restores us to policies 
that have repeatedly brought prosperity to our Nation.
  Government cannot create jobs, but it can create conditions where 
jobs multiply and prosper, or where they stagnate and disappear. That 
it can do very well. And we have very consistent experience with the 
policies that create these conditions.
  Increase the burdens on the economy and the economy contracts. 
Lighten the burdens on the economy and it grows and prospers. That is 
what is out of control with this administration. No nation has ever 
taxed and spent its way to prosperity, but many nations have taxed and 
spent their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy.
  We know what works. We know what doesn't work. The House Budget 
Committee's Balanced Budget for a Stronger America follows principles 
that have time and again consistently and rapidly produced economic 
expansion and prosperity.
  The Obama budget, the House Democrats' budget, and the Progressive 
budget before us now double down on failed policies that have 
bankrupted nations throughout recorded history.
  That is the choice before us today, and we are running out of time to 
make it. Let's choose wisely.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott) of the Ways and Means Committee.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, the last speaker said there are two 
visions for this country, and there are. There is the Republican 
vision, that is, give more to the wealthy, and there is the Progressive 
vision of investing in the future so that all Americans can do well.
  The Republicans would want you to believe that millionaires and 
billionaires have the same tax problems as folks on the bottom of the 
scale, the hard-working Americans who are trying to make a living. But 
that is not the case.
  While the Republican budget gives tax breaks to the wealthy and 
corporations, the CPC budget boosts and permanently extends the earned 
income tax credit and the child tax credit, which makes stronger 
working families.
  The second thing the CPC budget does, and this is even more for the 
future, it takes on the issue of student debt, which is a crisis in 
this country.
  We have $1.3 trillion of debt wrapped around the necks of our 
children. Every student and parent knows that the cost of a college 
education is going up. Millions of students are stuck with loans at 
high interest rates of 10 percent or larger.
  Rather than a Republican budget that keeps students and families 
indentured to Wall Street banks and the Federal student loan program, 
our alternative allows students to refinance their loan.
  You can refinance your house. Why can't the millions of students in 
this country refinance their student loans to get a lower rate? It is 
because the Republicans are tied to the banks and won't let it happen.
  Now, if the Republicans had their way, students would continue to 
choose between paying the rent and paying their student loan debt. That 
is where kids are today. They are paying more to the banks on their 
loans than they pay for their rent.
  That is not the America I want. It is not the America anybody in this 
country really wants, except a very few people that the Republicans 
represent.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Progressive budget.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished Member from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chairman, I would just make the point that as we have this 
debate on the so-called Progressive budget versus the House budget, 
that in fact it is Chairman Price's committee budget that is indeed the 
progressive budget. And I say that for this reason. If you stop and 
think about this notion of being progressive, it is to yield to 
innovation, to change to flexibility in one's own choice in the way 
that one does something. And I don't think that there is anything more 
sacred in that regard than the way that one spends one's own money.
  If we were to go with this alternative, what we would see on the tax 
and spending side is going from 18 percent of GDP up to around 22 
percent of GDP. Those are sort of amorphous numbers, but what does that 
equate to in 2025? It equates to about $800 billion.

  $800 billion means that you could go and fund the State of South 
Carolina government 115 times. In other words, you could take that 
product, multiply it times 115. Think about what we spend on, for 
instance, transportation here at the Federal level. You could fund it 
60 times.
  It is a big number by any account. And fundamentally, it is a 
question of equity. Should 435 folks here in this Chamber decide how 
folks' money is spent, or should they decide how their money is spent?
  I think it is also important because when you think about debt and 
deficit and interest payments, if we were to go with this alternative, 
what we are looking at is substantial increases on that front, so much 
so that I think that you are looking at the next generation that, to a 
degree, becomes an indentured servant to the Federal Government.
  This isn't my thinking. If you go to the University of Boston, 
Laurence Kotlikoff has done a study on a thing called generational 
accounting. It says, What is the imputed cost for a child born in 
America in terms of tax and spending load? It is about 82 percent. That 
is 82 percent.
  In fairness to Chairman Price, what he has done is try to stem that 
tide and moves us back in the direction so that people have more 
discretion on how they spend their money. And that is ultimately what 
is at play.
  I would also say that it is progressive from the standpoint in the 
way that the House budget attempts to deal with entitlements.
  Take, for instance, just the healthcare side. On Medicare, there is 
nothing crazier than trying to do the same thing over and over and 
expecting a different result because what all the actuaries have said 
is, if we continue on that road, we are going to see real shortfalls 
with regard to the Federal Government's ability to handle entitlements.
  On ObamaCare, there is nothing progressive about forcing somebody to 
pay into a system that may or may not fit their needs. On the Medicaid 
level, there is nothing less progressive than not offering choices. 
Think about the diversity of the different States we have out there and 
how different the health care needs may be in South Carolina than the 
inner city of Los Angeles.
  What Chairman Price's proposal does, is say: Let's give flexibility 
to different States so the Governors in those different States can look 
at what works best for them and their citizens.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the Budget Committee and the 
Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. POCAN. I thank Mr. Ellison for all his work with the Progressive 
Caucus.
  Madam Chairman, I have got to tell you, I couldn't disagree more with 
the good Governor of South Carolina on the budget. To call the 
Republican Tea Party-infused budget progressive is like calling 
Velveeta a type of Wisconsin cheese. It just doesn't compare.
  The Republican budget means Americans will work harder and earn less. 
It will be harder to buy a home, it will be harder to send your 
children to college, and harder to save for a secure retirement. It 
will do nothing to grow wages or help people get ahead. But it will do 
one thing for the people in the middle class. It will give you a $2,000 
tax increase so that the wealthiest in this country can get a tax 
break.

[[Page H1937]]

  The Progressive Caucus budget is exactly the opposite. The people's 
budget boosts economic opportunity for more Americans and gives hard-
working Americans a raise.
  The Progressive Caucus Budget grows our economy and will create 8.4 
million jobs by investing in the very things the economy needs most, 
things like infrastructure and teachers. It puts money into the pockets 
of workers so that you can get a raise and go out shopping or go to a 
movie and boost our economy and create jobs via that.
  The Progressive budget puts our next generation on a better track by 
making college more affordable--even debt free--and more accessible for 
more people.
  That is why I am supporting the people's budget, the Progressive 
Caucus budget, because it will grow your paycheck and create more jobs 
for hard-working Americans. I encourage my colleagues to join me in 
that support.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee), former chairperson of the Progressive 
Caucus, the Black Caucus, and Appropriations Committee member.
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding, and also thanks to 
you and Congressman Grijalva for your tremendous leadership of the 
Progressive Caucus and for crafting this people's budget--which is a 
people's budget.
  Today, millions of Americans are working hard and still struggling to 
make ends meet, and millions are working hard trying to find a job. 
Paychecks are shrinking while corporations reap record profits.
  Instead of developing a budget to create jobs and help American 
families, the House Republican budget ``balances'' the budget once 
again on the backs of the most vulnerable to protect giveaways to 
special interests and the wealthy few.
  The CPC's people's budget stands in stark contrast to the House 
Republican budget. This is a moral document. It reflects our values as 
a nation. It creates more than 8 million good-paying jobs. It includes 
a plan to lift more than 22 million Americans out of poverty over the 
next 10 years. It restores funding for SNAP and opens educational 
opportunity to all.
  It ends the Pentagon's slush fund, known as the overseas contingency 
account, that for far too long has padded the wallets of defense 
contractors at taxpayer expense. It also tackles waste, fraud, and 
abuse at the Pentagon by demanding audit readiness.
  Make no mistake: the people's budget does what the House Republican 
budget does not. It works for American families, not special interests, 
defense contractors, or the 1 percent.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is best for all American families, 
and that is support this amendment.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), a freshman 
Member who is a very well-respected member of the Progressive Caucus.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise to urge support of the 
people's budget--the budget put forth by the Congressional Progressive 
Caucus. This budget is responsive to working people of this country who 
work hard every day and play by the rules in an attempt to accomplish 
the noble task of providing for their families in the midst of 
escalating costs and decreasing wages.
  The people's budget recognizes that corporate profits are at their 
highest level in 85 years, but workers' wages are simultaneously at the 
lowest level in 65 years.

                              {time}  1400

  The Progressive budget was built with the working people of America 
in mind. It is designed to allow working families to keep more of the 
money that they earn; access higher wages; and live healthy, productive 
lives by increasing access to health care and lowering taxes.
  It recognizes it is not enough to fight against efforts to take from 
the middle class to give tax breaks to the rich. We must also fight for 
tax breaks for the middle class, expand family tax credits, fight for 
the cost-of-living increases for the retired, provide universal pre-K 
for children, and help students finance their student loans.
  The people's budget makes real working people of this Nation its 
priority, and I would urge my colleagues to support this, the people's 
budget.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us the time to talk 
about the people's budget. This is the budget that puts 8.4 million 
people back to work.
  Early in this debate, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, 
Mr. Price, pulled up a chart, and he did a comparison between our 
budget and the Republican budget, but there was one category that I did 
not see on that chart, and that is: How many jobs do you create? How 
many jobs do you create?
  This is the right number that we should be comparing budgets on, and 
I would say, for Americans all over this country looking for work, 
wanting to make a valuable contribution to themselves and their family, 
this is the right budget because this is the jobs budget, this is the 
good work budget, and this is the people's budget.
  I would also like to give a big thanks to over 150,000 people who 
signed a petition in favor of the people's budget. Citizen activists 
know what is good for their government. They want the people's budget. 
The Economic Policy Institute, trained economists who have strict 
numbers and modeling, have come up to help us out, so the people's 
budget.
  We urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my friend forgets the 8.4 million jobs 
that will be destroyed in the productive sector as government transfers 
those 8.4 million, through taxes, to the public sector.
  I think the reason these times are so impassioned is because we have 
arrived at a moment when two very different visions of society are 
competing for our Nation's future, and they are very much reflected in 
the budgets put forward by the two parties in this House.
  America's prosperity and greatness spring from uniquely American 
principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and 
constitutionally limited government.
  America's Founders created a voluntary society where people are free 
to make their own decisions, enjoy the fruit of their own labors, take 
responsibility for their own decisions, and lead their own lives with a 
minimum of government interference and intrusion.
  When someone needs our help, we freely give that help, but we ask in 
return that they make the effort to support themselves to the extent 
they can. Our government views no one person or group as more or less 
worthy than any other.
  We are Americans. We will be judged on our own merits, and we will 
make our own choices, including what kind of car we will drive or how 
we will raise our children or what kind of lightbulbs we prefer or what 
we will have for dinner.
  Today, a very different vision competes with our future, that of a 
compulsory society, where our individual rights are subordinated to the 
mandates of government bureaucrats, where innocent taxpayers are forced 
to bail out the bad decisions of others, and where consumers are 
compelled to purchase products or underwrite the losses of politically 
favored companies.
  Under this vision, the purpose of government is not to protect 
individual freedom, but it is to improve society however those in power 
decide that it should be improved, to take from those it declares are 
undeserving to give to those that it declares are deserving--or, to put 
it more succinctly, to take from each according to his abilities and to 
give to each according to his needs. That is what this is all about.
  Not more than 100 steps from where we debate right now, Thomas 
Jefferson reviewed the bountiful resources of the Nation and asked:

       With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us 
     a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow 
     citizens, a wise and frugal government which shall restrain 
     men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise 
     free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and 
     improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the 
     bread that it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

  This is A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America put forward by the 
House Budget Committee, and let us be

[[Page H1938]]

clear, the various Democratic plans, including the one before us now, 
fundamentally reject these American principles and replace them with 
values that are alien and antithetical to those that built our Nation.
  This is the question that our generation must decide in all of its 
forms, including the question put to us today by this substitute 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amendment 
in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) offered by the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus to H. Con. Res. 27, the House Republicans' ``Budget 
Resolution for Fiscal Year 2016.''
  I support the CPC's ANS, ``The People's Budget'' because it fixes an 
economy that, for too long, has failed to provide the opportunities 
American families need to get ahead.
   Mr. Chair, if we reject the House Republicans' ``Price Is Not 
Right'' Budget with its discredited and unworkable economic gimmicks 
and unrealistic projections and adopt the CPC's People's Budget, here 
is what we can expect: 1. 8.4 million good paying jobs by 2018; 2. $1.9 
trillion investment in America's future; and 3. $820 billion investment 
in infrastructure and transportation improvements.
  The People's Budget will usher in a new era of broad-based and shared 
prosperity by: 1. repealing the draconian sequester and all Budget 
Control Act spending caps; 2. increasing discretionary funding to 
invest in working families; 3. reversing harmful cuts to social safety 
net; and 4. investing in veterans, women, and working families.
  Under the People's Budget, millions of working families will see an 
increase in their purchasing power because the budget: 1. creates more 
than 8 million good jobs by 2018; 2. includes a four percent raise for 
federal workers; 3. provides for paid leave and child care; 4. supports 
an increase in the minimum wage increase and collective bargaining; and 
5. fully funds programs to make housing affordable and accessible for 
all Americans.
  Mr. Chair, Americans cannot reach their full potential if they lack 
educational opportunities, health security, or are saddled with 
crushing educational debts.
  That is why the CPC's People's Budget invests in K-12 and provides 
free pre-school, and provides debt-free college to every student and 
refinancing of student loans on terms favorable to students trying to 
get ahead, not banks.
  The CPC's People's Budget repeals the excise tax on high-priced 
workers plans, removes the prohibition barring CMS to negotiate lower 
prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients, and reauthorizes the 
Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Mr. Chair, because the People's Budget is for all persons in our 
country, it adopts comprehensive immigration reform and welcomes the 
substantial economic benefits it will generate.
  Everyone knows that our current outdated immigration laws have failed 
workers, families, businesses and increasingly, our nation's 
immigrants.
  Employers are unable to hire the workers they need. Immigrant workers 
are exploited.
  Families trying to reunite legally are separated for many years, and 
millions of individuals are forced to live in the shadows.
  The People's Budget helps immigrants integrate into American society 
and participate in the economy by becoming entrepreneurs, small 
business owners, innovators and future job creators.
  With comprehensive immigration reform, the federal budget deficit 
will be reduced by $197 billion over the next decade and $700 billion 
over the next 20 years according to a report by the non-partisan 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. Chair, I could go on at length explaining why the CPC's People's 
Budget is superior to the House Republican's ``Worker Harder, Get 
Less'' budget.
  But let me conclude by noting that in evaluating the merits of a 
budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of 
fiscal responsibility.
  To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's 
present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also 
pass a ``moral test.''
  The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards; the 
CPC's People's Budget does not.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the 
House Republicans' budget and voting for a better alternative, the 
CPC's People's Budget.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The question is on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


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

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 114-49.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an alternative budget 
on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2016.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2016 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.
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 2016 through 2025:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,885,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,001,837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,122,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,262,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,412,112,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,570,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,739,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,923,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,117,015,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,321,625,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $209,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $226,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $253,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $280,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $305,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $323,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $346,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $369,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $393,236,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $415,719,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,491,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,462,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,553,354,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,698,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,869,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,023,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,186,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,377,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,568,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,742,339,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,257,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,452,451,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,568,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,707,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,848,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,990,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,163,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,336,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,513,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,700,933,000,000.
       (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 2016: -$371,145,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$450,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$445,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$444,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$436,879,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$419,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$424,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$413,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$396,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: -$379,308,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The budgetary levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,024,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,703,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,395,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,078,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $21,753,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $22,413,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $23,061,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $23,719,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $24,385,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $25,022,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The budgetary levels of debt 
     held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,807,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,338,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,876,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,438,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,016,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $16,605,000,000,000.

[[Page H1939]]

       Fiscal year 2022: $17,232,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $17,886,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $18,566,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $19,278,000,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $582,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $593,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $575,837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $601,639,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $588,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $597,134 ,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $606,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $622,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $645,784,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $638,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $672,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $655,940,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,611,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,224,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,779,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,273,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,887,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,555,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,330,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,872,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,149,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,517000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,822,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,279,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,650,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,041,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,554,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,491,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,427,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,102,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,635,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,574,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,001,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,633,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,866,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,398,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,321,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,727,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,162,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,060,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,260,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,975,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$730.000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,487,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,902,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,736,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $245,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $176,674,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $131,913,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $156,511,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $141,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,077,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $109,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,517,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,976,000,000.

[[Page H1940]]

       (B) Outlays, $38,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,102,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,708,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,712,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $167,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $116,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $147,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $161,185,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $144,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $149,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $146,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $147,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $152,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $149,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,664,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,116,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $523,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $534,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $567,859,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $571,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $592,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $594,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,482,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $619,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $650,054,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $640,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $669,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $669,578,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $703,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $702,828,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $736,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $736,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $772,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $772,045,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $808,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $808,818,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $597,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $582,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $592,008,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $591,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,296,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $705,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $704,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $755,603,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $755,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $853,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $852,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $876,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $875,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $891,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $890,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $989,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $994,440,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $552,562,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $542,072,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $562,214,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $553,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $554,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,484,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $574,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $591,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,272,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $605,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $599,737,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $626,224,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $625,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $637,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $631,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $648,928,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $636,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $671,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $664,262,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $178,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $177,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $173,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,353,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $187,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $186,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $190,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $202,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $201,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $197,995,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $195,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $194,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,621,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,064,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,039,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,043,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,359,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,319,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,743,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,122,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,244,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,683,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,267,000,000.

[[Page H1941]]

       (B) Outlays, $32,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,396,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,155,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,308,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,666,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $368,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $421,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $421,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $495,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $495,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $560,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $560,645,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $666,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $666,257,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $712,670,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $712,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $756,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $756,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $794,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $794,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $824,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $824,027,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$20,241,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$9,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,161,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,314,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$7,449,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$165,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,229,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$52,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,333,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,313,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$93,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$89,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$89,327,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$95,188,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$95,188,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$97,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$97,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$102,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$102,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$105,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$105,007,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $18,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $7,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $3,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $69,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $47,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $40,000,000.

     SEC. 4. 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 2016 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2016 is 4.6 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) This concurrent resolution retains the social safety 
     net that has lifted millions of Americans out of poverty and 
     protects both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     and Medicaid from draconian spending cuts.
       (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 2016 is 5.4 percent.
       (2) For nonmeans-test direct spending, the estimated 
     average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during 
     the 10-year period beginning with fiscal year 2016 is 5.5 
     percent under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending:
       (A) 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.
       (B) Any savings derived from changes or reforms to Medicare 
     and Social Security should be used to extend the solvency of 
     these vital programs and not be used to offset the cost of 
     cutting taxes.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 163, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus has a 
long history of submitting fiscally sound and morally responsible 
budget alternatives that emphasize our commitment to eradicating 
poverty in America.
  The budget, which is endorsed by groups such as the National 
Education Association, SEIU, AFSCME, Planned Parenthood, and 
PolicyLink, focuses on a fairer Tax Code, ending the sequestration 
battle, creating jobs, and eliminating poverty and reducing the 
deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget is a plan that will work to protect and 
enhance the social safety net that continues to save millions from the 
ravages of poverty. Our goal is to increase economic opportunities for 
all Americans through significant and sustained investments in 
education and infrastructure, affordable housing, domestic 
manufacturing, small businesses, and job training.
  We propose, Mr. Chairman, significant investments to further 
accelerate our economic recovery and ensure no community in America is 
left behind. Additionally, no other budget on Capitol Hill prioritizes 
the plight of voting rights enforcement into the Federal fiscal map or 
contemplates $3 billion saved over 10 years by limiting mandatory 
minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
  Once again, the House Republican budget relies on partisan rhetoric 
and gimmicks instead of making the tough choices needed to invest in 
our Nation, grow our economy, and provide economic opportunities for 
hard-working Americans.
  House Republicans' unrealistic and unworkable budget continues the 
sequester for domestic spending this year and cuts that spending 
drastically in future years, disinvesting in our Nation and asking the 
most vulnerable Americans to carry the burden of deficit reduction.
  We cannot allow their budget to move forward on the backs of the

[[Page H1942]]

American people. I request my colleagues to support the Congressional 
Black Caucus alternative budget, as it is a budget that reflects the 
priorities of our nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who really did the heavy lifting, along with 
Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Gwen Moore, in crafting our 
budget.
  I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
be allowed to manage the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I want to commend our friends in 
the CBC for coming forward with a budget. It is not an easy thing to 
do, having worked these last 10 or 11 weeks to try to fashion a budget 
that could be dealt with on the floor of the House.
  I also want to just point out that this is one of the few 
opportunities that we have, as Congress, to look at a comparison of 
apples to apples, of similar work products with each other.
  There are three budgets that will be offered by our friends on the 
other side. We have talked just now about the Progressive Caucus. In 
the middle is the CBC budget, the one that we are discussing right now.
  I just want to highlight the differences between this budget, from a 
numerical standpoint, with the budget that has been offered by the 
Republican majority, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  In the area of taxes, what does the CBC budget do? Increases taxes by 
over $3.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Spending? Increases spending 
by over $7 trillion over the next 10 years, compared to the Republican 
budgets. Deficits? Increases deficits by over $4 trillion over the next 
10 years. Debt? Same, $4 trillion added to the debt.
  What do they spend on the defense of our Nation at these perilous 
times? Decreased spending on defense by $314 billion.
  The big question is: When does their budget ever get to balance? 
Because a balanced budget is what we need to get this economy rolling 
again. When does it ever get to balance? The answer is never.
  It is a worthy endeavor that our friends in the CBC have undertaken; 
however, it is not right for the country and certainly doesn't stand up 
to the scrutiny of A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), and I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed 
to control the time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget, which is a more credible and responsible alternative 
than the underlying Republican budget.
  A nation's budget reflects its priorities, but the Republican budget 
continues to highlight the wrong priorities. The underlying Republican 
budget is not a serious plan. It contains trillions of dollars in tax 
cuts, but claims to be revenue neutral, without showing a dime's worth 
of tax increases that will be necessary to make it revenue neutral.
  It includes trillions of dollars in unspecified cuts, and many of the 
specified cuts will not be made. For example, are we really going to 
repeal Medicare as we know it?
  If you actually believe that the Republican majority will carry out 
their plan, it would actually devastate our economy by balancing the 
budget on the backs of students, workers, seniors, the disabled, and 
vulnerable communities across the Nation.

  The Republican budget assumes that sequestration cuts will be enacted 
and then adds an additional $759 billion in nondefense discretionary 
spending cuts. That is the part of the budget that invests in 
education, workforce training, scientific research, transportation, and 
infrastructure.
  In stark contrast to the Republican budget, the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget actually puts real numbers on the page. We show our 
arithmetic. The CBC budget proposes $2.7 trillion in additional revenue 
over the next decade, but our budget lays out $5.6 trillion in specific 
revenue options and loophole closings that Congress could adopt to 
achieve that goal.
  With this additional revenue, we eliminate sequestration; we propose 
a $500 billion jobs package that will put millions of people back to 
work, and we include more than $300 billion above the President's 
budget for significant and sustained investments in programs that have 
been instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty.
  Our budget also calls for a raise in the minimum wage, adds a public 
option to the health insurance marketplace, and calls for the passage 
of comprehensive immigration reform. Factoring in the paid-for 
elimination of sequestration, our revenue enhancements, CBO's analysis 
of the deficit reduction impacts of both enacting a public option and 
comprehensive immigration reform, our budget credibly reduces the 10-
year deficit by $1.9 trillion when compared to CBO's March baseline.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget is a credible alternative to the vague and 
unrealistic plan offered by our Republican colleagues, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the CBC budget.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in opposition to this 
substitute amendment.
  Every day, I hear from my constituents in Tennessee who are still 
struggling to find work and make ends meet. This is the result of the 
slowest economic recovery in American history, and, in parts of my 
district, communities are still plagued by double-digit unemployment 
rates; yet this amendment would raise taxes on Americans by $3.2 
trillion. This would be on top of the $1.6 trillion in new taxes 
already imposed under President Obama.
  Raising taxes on small business is exactly the opposite of what is 
needed to reduce unemployment, get Americans back to work, and grow our 
economy.
  Even with this $3.2 trillion tax increase, which would be the largest 
in American history, this budget would never balance. In fact, compared 
to A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America, this substitute amendment 
would add $4 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years.

                              {time}  1415

  This is because this amendment would increase spending by $7 
trillion, compared to the House Republican budget. In fact, it 
increases spending for every category in the budget except for our 
national defense. This budget would take $1 trillion of its proposed 
tax hikes and use all of this money to break the Budget Control Act 
spending caps for nondefense spending only. This is unacceptable.
  At a time when we are faced with Russian aggression in the Ukraine, 
the threat of ISIS in the Middle East, and an increasingly 
unpredictable security environment, we need to adequately fund our 
servicemen and -women. That is why the House Republican budget would 
comply with the current spending caps in the law but still adds $387 
billion in defense spending over a 10-year window, all while balancing 
the budget without any tax increases.
  Long before I served on the Budget Committee, I got a crash course on 
budgeting 101 as a single working mother. And in those years, I raised 
three children on a nurse's salary, teaching me how to live within my 
means and stretch my dollars.
  Mr. Chair, I have had to work to make ends meet, so I know how 
important our social safety net is for those in need. I want to see 
this safety net strengthened and preserved for future generations.
  However, this budget falls into the trap of measuring how much we 
care by how much we spend. Federal programs and initiatives should be 
evaluated based on their outcomes, by how many people we help get out 
of poverty, help to get back to work, and help to get the training and 
the education they need.
  One example is our Federal job training program. In 2011, the 
Government

[[Page H1943]]

Accountability Office, the GAO, issued a report that found 47 
overlapping Federal job training programs, costing $18 billion in 2009 
alone. The report showed that this duplication was not serving workers 
that needed training and was not responsibly using Federal dollars. If 
we want to help workers who need training, there is a clear need to 
reform these programs to improve outcomes.
  That is why last year, this House passed the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act. By the way, it was bipartisan legislation which was 
signed into law and made important reforms to Federal job training 
programs, better helping workers looking for a job while responsibly 
using taxpayer dollars. This substitute budget would take a step back 
from these reforms and simply spend an additional $13 billion on these 
programs without any reform. Unfortunately, this is just one example of 
this substitute amendment doubling down on failed policies of the past.
  Additionally, it would create a $1 billion slush fund for a national 
stimulus program. Just like the previously failed stimulus program, 
this would do nothing to create new jobs and simply adds another $100 
billion to our debt, which our children and our grandchildren will have 
to pay.
  It would also reverse bipartisan reforms made to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly called SNAP, and increase 
spending. If we want to protect those who are most in need, we need to 
find ways to reform the SNAP program.
  The substitute amendment would go further than even ObamaCare has, 
calling for the creation of a public health insurance option, a 
backdoor way to nationalizing our health care system. This idea is so 
radical that when Democrats controlled both Chambers of Congress and 
the White House, it was not adopted. Health care should be patient-
centered, allowing Americans to make decisions with their doctors and 
their families, not with the Federal Government.
  Instead of doubling down on ObamaCare, House Republicans want to see 
greater choice, more affordability, increased quality, and innovation 
in health care, which is why our budget proposes a market-based, 
patient-centered reform.
  We also will provide structural reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, 
which provide care to our Nation's seniors and those in need. The House 
Republican budget would make no changes for those who are near or 
currently in retirement, and provides States the flexibility to 
administer their Medicaid programs to meet the needs of the people in 
their own State.
  Doing nothing to reform this unsustainable path that Medicare and 
Medicaid are on, as this substitute amendment does, ensures that we 
will go bankrupt.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds before 
yielding to another speaker.
  The case has been made that this budget raises taxes. Sure, it does. 
But the Republican budget also raises taxes.
  They have cut the AMT. They have reduced the marginal rate. There are 
other tax extenders. And they say it is revenue-neutral. The only way 
you can make it revenue-neutral, Mr. Chair, is to raise taxes--
trillions of dollars to make it revenue-neutral. They don't show a dime 
of taxes. The difference between that budget and ours is, we list 
specific options that could be used.
  They also would repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they keep all the 
taxes that paid for it.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding, and I also 
thank him for his tremendous leadership in continuing to craft the 
Congressional Black Caucus' budget and also for his work as ranking 
member on the Education and the Workforce Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' alternative budget. I want to, once again, 
commend Congressman Bobby Scott for leading us to this point and for 
putting together a budget which really is a budget that reflects our 
values as a Nation.
  As a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committees and as chair 
of our Task Force on Poverty, Income Inequality, and Opportunity, I 
know that our national budget is a moral document and a statement of 
our national priorities. The budget that my Republican colleagues have 
put forward does nothing for families struggling to find a job or those 
living in poverty. Instead, it includes draconian cuts to programs 
which, over the last 50 years, cut poverty by one-third, thanks to the 
War on Poverty.
  The Republican plan cuts the safety net while 45 million people still 
are living in poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, poverty in the African American community is 27.2 
percent. In the Latino community, it is 23.5 percent.
  Our budget addresses this problem with the Half in Ten plan. By 
coordinating Federal programs and agencies under a national strategy, 
we will cut poverty by 50 percent in one decade. That is 22 million 
people lifted out of poverty in the next 10 years.
  This budget outlines a clear package for eradicating poverty rather 
than foolishly turning vital programs into block grants.
  We expand food assistance for our children and seniors. We extend 
unemployment compensation for those still looking for work following 
the recent recession. We give America a raise and, thereby, boost our 
economy, because no one should be working and living in poverty.

  With regard to the Pentagon, we require that we audit the Pentagon 
and encourage DOD to implement remaining GAO recommendations that would 
likely lead to tens of billions in cost savings by bringing a culture 
of financial accountability to the Pentagon.
  As in the previous budgets, the CBC invests savings from cuts in the 
ballistic missile defense program to be used by the Defense Department 
to implement the remaining GAO recommendations.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlelady an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  Also, let me just say, our budget employs the 10-20-30 formula 
championed by our leader, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn).
  By directing at least 10 percent of Federal spending into areas with 
poverty rates of more than 20 percent over the last 30 years, we will 
make progress toward ending entrenched and generational poverty that 
hurts families and communities.
  A vote for the CBC budget really is a vote with the conscience of the 
Congress. It is a message to the American people that you stand with 
those who are working hard to find a job or working hard at a job with 
low wages. It is a message to the country that balancing the budget on 
the backs of the most vulnerable to keep giveaways to the superwealthy 
is unacceptable, and that is not the American way.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, the best way to lift someone out of poverty 
is to give them an opportunity to have a job, and that is what A 
Balanced Budget for a Stronger America does. It does cut taxes, 
allowing for more job opportunities and an increase in wages for the 
workers.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, could you advise us of the time 
remaining on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I would like to engage the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price) in a colloquy.
  I was wondering if it were possible for the gentleman to yield the 
Congressional Black Caucus maybe 4 to 6 minutes of his time. We have 
many speakers, and we have worked very hard on this budget. You know, 
the majority gets its way, but the minority ought to get its say.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MOORE. I yield to the gentleman.

[[Page H1944]]

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
  The gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) controls our time, and we 
do have another speaker or two. But as soon as your time expires and if 
we have time remaining, then we will be happy to yield some time to the 
CBC.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much for that courtesy.
  Mr. Chair, it is really my privilege to discuss the social safety net 
programs that are at the heart of the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget.
  The CBC acknowledges the efforts on the part of the majority to 
address debt and deficits, but we cannot do it on the backs of the 
poor.
  Much has been made of jobs being the answer. We agree with that, but 
there are the disabled, elderly, and children who comprise the poor who 
cannot and do not work.
  The Republican budget proposes $759 billion in cuts to the nondefense 
discretionary budget below the already damaging sequester levels. That 
is in addition to the more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory 
spending, a lifeline to benefits like food stamps, Medicaid, and 
Medicare.
  The CBC budget offers Americans a choice. In stark contrast to the 
Republican budget, we invest in low-income families and students and 
provide security so that our impoverished, our infirm, and our elderly 
and children are treated with dignity and respect. It protects the 
social safety net.
  It rejects the block granting of Medicaid and food stamps and 
voucherizing Medicare. It restores the TANF emergency contingency fund, 
rather than the $34 billion OCO slush fund. We do $2.5 billion rather 
than $34 billion for a slush fund.
  It also restores our emergency unemployment insurance for all 
Americans. Millions of Americans have exhausted these benefits. And it 
invests in so many other vital programs, such as WIC, LIHEAP, public 
housing, homeless assistance, Section 8 and rural housing programs, 
Social Services Block Grant, Child Care and Development Block Grant.
  I want to thank the chair and my CBC colleagues for working with me 
on this very worthy budget. Please vote ``yes'' on this alternative 
budget.
  Mrs. BLACK. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
  Mr. RICHMOND. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for 
diligently preparing this budget.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to vote for the 
CBC budget. Mr. Chair, the budget that we adopt will speak to our 
values as a Congress and our values as a country.
  I am sad to say, Mr. Chair, that the Republican budget says that we 
are a country without values and lacking a conscience. The Republican 
budget makes severe cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, job 
training, and transportation so that it can fund tax cuts to the 
wealthy.
  I want to be crystal clear. The Republican budget is a financial 
hocus pocus that will not put us on a path to financial stability.

                              {time}  1430

  However, Mr. Chairman, it is a certain path to a dire moral 
bankruptcy that is counter to the soul of our great country.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, on the other hand, the CBC budget is a financially 
superior budget that invests in what makes this country exceptional. 
The CBC budget eradicates poverty by increasing economic opportunities 
through significant and sustained investments in education, 
infrastructure, affordable housing, manufacturing, small business, and 
job training.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side talk about the ability 
to lift people out of poverty. We have the ability today to lift 14 
million people out of poverty simply by raising the minimum wage. If we 
create more minimum wage jobs, we are only increasing the number of 
people who will still live in poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget rewards those who make political 
contributions, and the CBC budget rewards those who contribute to 
society and the greater good.
  In closing, the CBC budget recognizes that working families in this 
country are getting shortchanged, so our budget tries to level the 
playing field and give more opportunities to those working families so 
that they can enjoy the economic prosperity that the investor class has 
enjoyed since our efforts to come out of the Great Recession.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my fellow colleague of the Budget Committee 
and also fellow Tennessean.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Ms. Moore. She is still 
on the floor and serves on the Budget Committee with us. She is such a 
good, productive, and contributory member of that committee. I 
appreciate the perspective that she brings, and I know that she has 
worked diligently on the budget that the CBC is bringing before us 
today.
  I do not support that budget. I support the committee print that we 
have. Mr. Chairman, here is exactly why.
  We all know Washington does not have a revenue problem; it has a 
spending problem. Last year, more revenues came into our Federal 
coffers than ever. It is always important, as we talk about the budget, 
to put in perspective where this money comes from. It comes from hard-
working taxpayers, and the government has not one single penny to spend 
until a taxpayer sends that money in.
  Now, the budget that we have brought out of committee does something 
quite significant. Number one, it will reduce Federal spending $5.5 
trillion over the next 10 years. That is an important thing to do, and 
here is why.
  We are continuing to borrow somewhere around 30 cents for every 
dollar that we are spending. It is bouncing right now, I think, between 
28 and 30 cents for every dollar. That is too much. It gets to be a 
fairness issue for future generations.
  We have got $18 trillion worth of debt, and $9 trillion worth of that 
debt has come on our books in the past 6 years. That is not fair to 
future generations. It is not fair to our Nation's security.
  Getting the debt under control is important. That is why a budget 
that saves $5.5 trillion and comes to balance--comes to balance--for 
our annual outlays in 9 years is significantly important.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  You see, when we talk about what will be accomplished by our budget 
and we talk about fairness, it is imperative that the spending be 
brought under control. What we are bringing forward is a way for us to 
bring that into balance and to begin to get the agencies, even reducing 
the Federal workforce by 10 percent, making certain that we are 
rightsizing that workforce. Those are steps that should be taken. They 
are steps that we ought to be taking, and it is something that we all 
should support.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to offer my appreciation 
to Ranking Member Scott both for his service on the Education Committee 
as a ranking member, but also for his continuing efforts and work on a 
very, very positive step, great step, toward changing America.
  There is a premise in the Republican budget, two premises or 
underlying thoughts that I vigorously disagree with. As I stand in 
explaining or supporting the Congressional Black Caucus budget, let me 
also say that I rise in support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus 
budget--and I will provide a statement into the Record--for its efforts 
in improving America.
  But the premise of the budget of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle is that if you are poor, if you are in need of help, then it is 
either your fault or you are taking advantage of the government's 
charity and largess.
  Walk a mile in the district that I represent--and many districts 
across America--and you will find parents who get up at 4 and 6 in the 
morning to jobs that are less than the minimum wage in some instances, 
or are the minimum wage, working very hard to support their families. 
Those individuals deserve an equal opportunity.

[[Page H1945]]

  I am grateful that this budget, the Congressional Black Caucus 
budget, talks about a comprehensive jobs program totaling some $500 
billion--a mere $500 billion--over 3 years.
  We understand that people want to work. This involves a national 
direct job creation program, a program to assist local government in 
hiring and retaining teachers and law enforcement, investing to rebuild 
our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, rebuilding neighborhoods, and, 
as well, understanding that you can't work harder and get less.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that I am very supportive of in this 
budget, one that others would not think of, is ending the Cradle to 
Prison Pipeline.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated 
that limiting the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on 
nonviolent drug offenders would have an overall net savings of $3 
billion over 10 years. This is a budget that goes to the heart of the 
concerns of Americans who may not have the right start in life but 
deserve an opportunity.
  I want to be able to support a budget that, in essence, reduces the 
deficit and takes away sequestration, not piles taxes on persons who 
cannot afford them and creates very little jobs and undermines the 
social network that is necessary for those of us who believe we are, in 
fact, our brothers' and sisters' keeper.
  I ask you to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget. It is 
smart, it is strong, and it leads America forward.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amendment in the Nature of 
a Substitute (ANS) offered by the Congressional Black Caucus to H. Con. 
Res. 27, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 
2016.''
  I support the CBC Budget for four principal reasons: 1. It ends the 
threat of sequestration; 2. It will accelerate our economic recovery; 
3. It will help eradicate poverty in America; and 4. It will reduce the 
deficit by approximately $1.9 trillion over 10 years.
  Mr. Chair, if we reject the House Republicans' ``Price Is Not Right'' 
and ``Work Harder to Get Less'' Budget with its discredited economic 
gimmicks and unrealistic projections and adopt the CBC Budget, we will 
get instead a comprehensive jobs program totaling $500 billion over 
three years.
  The jobs created will accelerate our economic recovery and ensure 
that it reaches every community in America, while also making the 
necessary investments to ensure America's longterm economic 
competitiveness.
  Specifically, the CBC Budget will create jobs by providing: 1. $100 
billion to fund a National Direct Job Creation Program; 2. $50 billion 
for school Modernization; 3. $50 billion to assist local government 
hire and retain teachers, law enforcement and first responder Jobs; 4. 
$230 billion in immediate investment to rebuild our nation's crumbling 
infrastructure; 5. $50 billion to rebuilding neighborhoods and 
communities not fully recovered from the Great Recession of 2008; 6. 
$13 billion for job training programs; and 7. $7 billion for summer 
jobs so young persons can save money to attend college and plan for 
their futures.
  Mr. Chair, when it comes to addressing the poverty that is still too 
prevalent in our country, the CBC Budget is clearly superior to the 
Republican's ``Work Harder, Get Less'' Budget.
  The CBC Budget provides for $300 billion for programs that have 
proven instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty.
  The funding provided will be used to restore cuts to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, extend emergency unemployment insurance, 
expand access to affordable housing, increase access to quality and 
affordable education, and increase funding for job training and trade 
adjustment assistance programs.
  Additionally, Mr. Chair, to ensure that federal resources are 
targeted more efficiently towards eradicating poverty and are actually 
reaching communities most in need, the CBC budget proposes the 
codification of the ``10-20-30'' policy for federal spending.
  Under the ``10-20-30'' policy at least 10 percent of the federal 
funds in certain accounts are to be directed to areas that have had a 
poverty rate of 20 percent for the last 30 years.
  Finally, I support the CBC Budget because it puts an end to the 
draconian sequester burdening the economy and our people for the last 
several years.
  In addition, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget 
Office, it will reduce the deficit by approximately $1.9 trillion over 
10 years.
  Mr. Chair, it is said often, but is no less true, that the federal 
budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the 
nation's most cherished values.
  As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert 
Humphrey said:

       The moral test of government is how that government treats 
     those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who 
     are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are 
     in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

  The Republican budget resolution fails this moral test; the CBC 
Budget does not.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the 
House Republicans' budget and voting for a better alternative, the CBC 
Budget.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining. 
The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control 
that time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank the gentlewoman very much. I 
appreciate being given some time at the last minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the wealth gap and racial wealth gap have reached 
record levels, and alarming statistics tell the story. Mr. Chairman, 
46.5 million Americans are living in poverty, and comparable numbers 
are even worse in the African American community and other communities 
of color. For decades, we have had policies and made funding decisions 
that have benefited only a few at the expense of the middle class and 
minorities. The Great Recession and subsequent years of budget cuts 
have only made things worse for these communities.
  While the Republicans' budget demonstrates their commitment to 
maintaining this inequality, the budget put forth by the Congressional 
Black Caucus today attempts to rebuild and restore what we lost, 
especially in the housing sector, which is why it has my support.
  First, the CBC budget retains a robust Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, which Congress created to protect all Americans from predatory 
loans that led to millions of foreclosures, many of which were in the 
African American community. The CBC budget also makes critical 
investments in affordable housing programs, including fully funding 
public housing and fully restoring Section 8 housing choice vouchers 
lost due to sequestration.
  The CBC budget would also invest much-needed resources to add over 
20,000 new beds for the homeless across our country. Investments in 
these important rental and homeless assistance programs is especially 
important given the fact that we have nearly 8 million households in 
America for whom safe, decent, and affordable housing is not available 
to them.
  Put simply, the Republican budget would widen the wealth gap in this 
country; the CBC budget would help eliminate it.
  Further, the CBC budget strengthens our housing market, our financial 
system and economic stability as a whole. I urge that all Members of 
this House vote in favor of it and in favor of putting our country back 
on a sustainable economic path.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
courtesy in extending additional time, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a percentage of the economy, the Republican 
underlying budget is 40 percent lower than the previous low in half a 
century. It is only balanced because it is missing a couple of trillion 
dollars where you cut

[[Page H1946]]

taxes and say it is revenue neutral. There is no indication that the 
taxes will be restored. It is unrealistic because the level of cuts 
won't be made.
  You are not going to repeal Medicare as you know it. We have tried to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times and haven't been able to 
do it. It is interesting that they want to repeal the services but not 
the taxes. There are substantial cuts in Pell grants and increases in 
student loans. Transportation initiatives are just about zeroed out.
  On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget has specific tax 
increases. It shows that we make money by comprehensive immigration 
reform and the public option. We pay to eliminate sequestration. We 
create jobs, eliminate poverty, and have a realistic budget.
  I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would adopt the Congressional 
Black Caucus budget as a realistic priority, with the right priorities 
we would adopt the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to just contrast these two budgets just a little 
bit. As we look at a stronger America--and our balanced budget does 
provide for a stronger America--we see that the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget is one that will increase our debt for our children and 
our grandchildren and increase taxes. Neither one of these is going to 
help our economy grow nor get people out of poverty.
  Our budget balances in less than 10 years. A balanced budget means a 
healthier economy today and greater opportunity for tomorrow, helping 
to raise people out of poverty.
  The budget also repeals the unworkable and unfair ObamaCare plan and 
starts over with more choice.
  The budget boosts our defense spending, helping to provide defense 
for our country and support for our men and women.
  The budget eliminates the double dipping of the disability insurance 
and the unemployment insurance and establishes a plan that will 
strengthen the Social Security trust fund rather than having the trust 
fund be depleted.
  The budget saves and strengthens Medicare, ending that $700 billion 
ObamaCare raid that was in the President's proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, all of these things help to get us on the path and on 
the course to a successful America where we can be proud to hand our 
children and our grandchildren a successful country whereby they can 
know the kinds of opportunities that we have had and live the American 
Dream. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the CBC 
Alternative Budget for Fiscal Year 2016.
  As has been highlighted during today's debate, the Federal budget is 
a blueprint for our nation. It is a statement of our national 
priorities and of our national values.
  Our budget should lay the groundwork to secure a strong middle class, 
create more jobs, and grow paychecks.
  We should be working to create a level playing field for all 
Americans.
  We cannot continue with these short-term fixes which lately have 
become all too common in Congress.
  For instance, in May, the Highway Trust Fund is set to expire--again.
  Yet, more than sixty-five percent of America's roads are in need of 
repair and the American Society of Civil Engineers has given our 
nation's infrastructure a D in its most recent report card.
  We could be creating thousands of jobs--from real estate to 
construction work--if we got serious about investing in infrastructure.
  As the conscious of the Congress. The CBC budget focuses on creating 
jobs and giving hard-working Americans families a fair-share.
  Our CBC budget would provide $230 billion for our nation's 
infrastructure--providing an immediate investment to help modernize our 
roads, bridges, and tunnels, as well as providing dollars to build new 
and improve existing commuter and public transportation systems.
  We cannot delay or rely on short term funding patches that seem to 
become the norm in this Republican led Congress.
  Mr. Chair, when we rebuild our roads and modernize our nation's 
transportation, we create and maintain good-paying jobs.
  That's the best investment we can make of taxpayer dollars. Not only 
do we keep Americans safe, but we invest in our greatest resource--the 
American worker. That's what I call a bang for your buck.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.

                              {time}  1445


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

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 114-49.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2016.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2016 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
       (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 2016.

                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.
Sec. 202. Reconciliation procedures.
Sec. 203. Additional guidance for reconciliation.
Sec. 204. Policy statement on reconcilation to repeal Obamacare.

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate 
              macroeconomic effects.
Sec. 302. Limitation on measures affecting Social Security solvency.
Sec. 303. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 304. Limitation on transfers from the general fund of the Treasury 
              to the Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 305. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 306. Fair value credit estimates.
Sec. 307. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 308. Allocation for overseas contingency operations/global war on 
              terrorism.
Sec. 309. Adjustments for improved control of budgetary resources.
Sec. 310. Concepts, aggregates, allocations and application.
Sec. 311. Rulemaking powers.

                 TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 401. Direct spending.

                         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 replacement of 
              Obamacare.
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 transportation reform.
Sec. 509. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and increase 
              opportunity and upward mobility.
Sec. 510. Implementation of a deficit and long-term debt reduction 
              agreement.
Sec. 511. Deficit-neutral reserve account for reforming SNAP.
Sec. 512. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Social Security Disability 
              Insurance Reform.
Sec. 513. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the State Children's Health 
              Insurance Program.
Sec. 514. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for graduate medical education.
Sec. 515. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Federal retirement reform.
Sec. 516. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for defense sequester 
              replacement.

                      TITLE VI--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 601. Policy statement on health care law repeal.
Sec. 602. Policy statement on replacing the President's health care 
              law.
Sec. 603. Policy statement on Medicare.

[[Page H1947]]

Sec. 604. Policy statement on Medicaid State flexibility block grants.
Sec. 605. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 606. Policy statement on means-tested welfare programs.
Sec. 607. Policy statement on reform of the Supplemental Nutrition 
              Assistance Program.
Sec. 608. Policy statement on work requirements.
Sec. 609. Policy statement on a carbon tax.
Sec. 610. Policy statement on regulation of greenhouse gases by the 
              Environmental Protection Agency.
Sec. 611. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 612. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 613. Policy statement on trade.
Sec. 614. Policy statement on energy production.
Sec. 615. Policy statement on Federal regulatory policy.
Sec. 616. Policy statement on higher education and workforce 
              development opportunity.
Sec. 617. Policy statement on Federal funding of abortion.
Sec. 618. Policy statement on transportation reform.
Sec. 619. Policy statement on Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 620. Policy statement on reducing unnecessary, wasteful, and 
              unauthorized spending.
Sec. 621. Policy statement on balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 622. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the 
              cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 623. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
              dollars.
Sec. 624. Policy statement on creation of a Committee to Eliminate 
              Duplication and Waste.
Sec. 625. Policy statement on budget process and baseline reform.
Sec. 626. Policy statement on Federal accounting methodologies.
Sec. 627. Policy statement on scorekeeping for outyear budgetary 
              effects in appropriation Acts.
Sec. 628. Policy statement on agency fees and spending.
Sec. 629. No Budget, no Pay.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2025:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,666,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,763,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,858,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,974,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,099,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,241,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,388,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,550,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,722,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,905,648,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $0.
       Fiscal year 2017: $0.
       Fiscal year 2018: $0.
       Fiscal year 2019: $0.
       Fiscal year 2020: $0.
       Fiscal year 2021: $0.
       Fiscal year 2022: $0.
       Fiscal year 2023: $0.
       Fiscal year 2024: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,804,255,329,803.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,795,462,458,903.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,865,997,991,741.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,000,376,760,861.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,108,966,585,790.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,172,280,451,129.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,271,239,346,757.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,353,376,032,969.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,385,534,274,531.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,492,980,109,634.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,875,014,856,384.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,814,832,468,381.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,849,474,859,887.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,972,316,101,289.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,068,172,096,646.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,144,578,956,503.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,261,322,193,088.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,323,765,840,982.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,340,157,830,662.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,464,735,098,225.
       (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 2016: -$208,259,856,384.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$51,504,468,381.
       Fiscal year 2018: $8,656,140,113.
       Fiscal year 2019: $1,830,898,711.
       Fiscal year 2020: $31,237,903,354.
       Fiscal year 2021: $97,384,043,497.
       Fiscal year 2022: $127,365,806,912.
       Fiscal year 2023: $226,622,159,018.
       Fiscal year 2024: $381,986,169,338.
       Fiscal year 2025: $440,912,901,775.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The budgetary levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,913,744,958,460.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,314,491,964,331.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,563,830,455,326.
       Fiscal year 2019: $19,857,958,879,371.
       Fiscal year 2020: $20,123,855,366,287.
       Fiscal year 2021: $20,351,214,337,587.
       Fiscal year 2022: $20,715,329,820,423.
       Fiscal year 2023: $20,901,532,189,180.
       Fiscal year 2024: $20,717,769,565,646.
       Fiscal year 2025: $20,684,027,272,338.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The budgetary levels of debt 
     held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,703,981,750,475.
       Fiscal year 2017: $13,960,949,960,296.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,067,434,872,731.
       Fiscal year 2019: $14,248,184,941,570.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,422,683,320,242.
       Fiscal year 2021: $14,587,672,210,472.
       Fiscal year 2022: $14,936,858,695,742.
       Fiscal year 2023: $15,125,854,409,576.
       Fiscal year 2024: $14,963,760,099,108.
       Fiscal year 2025: $15,014,505,127,509.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the budgetary 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2016 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $578,280,777,857.
       (B) Outlays, $613,862,153,570.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $572,025,184,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,422,160,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,237,912,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,552,672,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $644,627,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $657,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $648,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $683,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $663,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $698,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $683,350,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $37,513,493,257.
       (B) Outlays, $41,995,505,479.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,762,853,450.
       (B) Outlays, $39,934,846,949.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,651,643,950.
       (B) Outlays, $38,866,220,775.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,528,536,020.
       (B) Outlays, $38,354,273,029.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,461,865,977.
       (B) Outlays, $38,697,741,578.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,925,063,701.
       (B) Outlays, $39,232,179,719.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,126,001,914.
       (B) Outlays, $39,982,610,336.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,095,485,241.
       (B) Outlays, $40,732,800,911.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,103,629,772.
       (B) Outlays, $41,553,888,595.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,133,401,274.
       (B) Outlays, $42,416,153,641.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $28,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,003,392,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,932,305,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,924,301,820.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,578,662,625.
       (B) Outlays, $29,357,268,851.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,226,743,853.
       (B) Outlays, $29,798,265,570.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,904,449,193.
       (B) Outlays, $30,387,989,039.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,583,742,872.
       (B) Outlays, $30,957,291,773.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,292,588,187.
       (B) Outlays, $31,636,998,973.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,002,947,480.
       (B) Outlays, $32,338,214,946.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,741,782,114.
       (B) Outlays, $33,058,954,535.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,488,239,558.
       (B) Outlays, $33,794,801,398.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $-5,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,930,371,957.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,819,314,062.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,757,967,962.

[[Page H1948]]

       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,728,702,937.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,111,452,050.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,096,589,163.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,078,305,078.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,254,611,266.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,969,957,520.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,171,638,088.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,763,905,675.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,599,805,029.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,680,623,026.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,195,039,484.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,596,392,352.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,064,102,846.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,606,962,951.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,109,301,299.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,918,880,787.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $31,299,572,447.
       (B) Outlays, $33,745,933,147.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,804,397,584.
       (B) Outlays, $33,763,424,433.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,940,706,078.
       (B) Outlays, $33,072,114,262.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,545,716,150.
       (B) Outlays, $33,019,236,283.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,800,053,945.
       (B) Outlays, $32,914,442,144.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,731,162,151.
       (B) Outlays, $33,002,142,690.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,463,492,711.
       (B) Outlays, $33,583,695,102.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,834,190,867.
       (B) Outlays, $34,011,836,980.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,301,960,627.
       (B) Outlays, $33,902,619,669.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,926,499,137.
       (B) Outlays, $31,416,919,831.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $19,898,010,335.
       (B) Outlays, $20,942,095,280.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,827,846,850.
       (B) Outlays, $22,957,388,865.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,738,376,840.
       (B) Outlays, $21,154,062,249.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,657,292,553.
       (B) Outlays, $20,032,522,337.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,587,456,346.
       (B) Outlays, $19,144,471,168.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,048,816,297.
       (B) Outlays, $18,608,414,371.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,995,149,863.
       (B) Outlays, $18,586,093,026.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,569,077,258.
       (B) Outlays, $19,145,484,076.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,766,828,555.
       (B) Outlays, $19,306,333,800.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,999,880,260.
       (B) Outlays, $19,600,090,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$3,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,616,676,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,373,102,500.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,620,296,710.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,252,355,063.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,997,848,520.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,800,690,294.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,586,750,251.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,903,060,242.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,479,356,095.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,522,465,808.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,768,710,970.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,741,907,919.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,819,106,102.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,965,387,525.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,305,538,861.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,990,905,601.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,635,008,871.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,370,433,193.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,844,501,407.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $32,470,539,628.
       (B) Outlays, $69,973,708,016.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,354,221,079.
       (B) Outlays, $61,459,750,057.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,202,314,885.
       (B) Outlays, $65,144,457,480.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,630,814,158.
       (B) Outlays, $67,324,272,537.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,886,671,678.
       (B) Outlays, $68,004,790,643.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,163,658,354.
       (B) Outlays, $69,472,273,861.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,515,161,060.
       (B) Outlays, $70,923,592,736.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,915,482,431.
       (B) Outlays, $72,212,261,043.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,164,815,548.
       (B) Outlays, $73,292,369,608.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,667,811,114.
       (B) Outlays, $74,468,932,745.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $7,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,927,516,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,688,082,500.
       (B) Outlays, $16,753,320,710.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,088,559,563.
       (B) Outlays, $15,382,887,620.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,381,194,111.
       (B) Outlays, $13,788,745,754.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,408,701,972.
       (B) Outlays, $12,567,244,658.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,304,604,699.
       (B) Outlays, $12,095,209,451.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,303,596,421.
       (B) Outlays, $10,936,853,095.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,358,935,928.
       (B) Outlays, $9,345,212,395.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,446,554,262.
       (B) Outlays, $8,890,070,466.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,578,595,232.
       (B) Outlays, $8,930,419,157.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $80,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,652,371,460.
       (B) Outlays, $90,413,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,829,771,467.
       (B) Outlays, $87,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,313,474,733.
       (B) Outlays, $85,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,600,206,105.
       (B) Outlays, $87,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,609,236,615.
       (B) Outlays, $88,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,849,057,844.
       (B) Outlays, $90,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,938,338,847.
       (B) Outlays, $91,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,345,533,818.
       (B) Outlays, $92,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,001,410,265.
       (B) Outlays, $94,334,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $356,215,596,566.
       (B) Outlays, $365,098,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,899,454,985.
       (B) Outlays, $365,047,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,983,956,484.
       (B) Outlays, $364,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,685,568,372.
       (B) Outlays, $364,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $373,679,065,768.
       (B) Outlays, $364,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,974,828,600.
       (B) Outlays, $364,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,806,363,913.
       (B) Outlays, $363,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,626,231,239.
       (B) Outlays, $363,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $363,258,019,916.
       (B) Outlays, $363,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $362,556,573,042.
       (B) Outlays, $362,722,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $577,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $577,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $574,936,390,472.
       (B) Outlays, $574,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $576,281,682,302.
       (B) Outlays, $576,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $635,992,586,992.
       (B) Outlays, $635,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $676,174,392,195.
       (B) Outlays, $676,081,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $721,343,299,702.
       (B) Outlays, $721,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:

[[Page H1949]]

       (A) New budget authority, $799,902,931,815.
       (B) Outlays, $799,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $815,174,505,146.
       (B) Outlays, $814,979,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $821,746,349,714.
       (B) Outlays, $821,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $914,308,332,995.
       (B) Outlays, $914,192,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $511,965,047,286.
       (B) Outlays, $513,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $477,846,923,208.
       (B) Outlays, $473,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $477,561,645,878.
       (B) Outlays, $467,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $474,689,337,990.
       (B) Outlays, $468,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,140,825,023.
       (B) Outlays, $496,703,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,249,815,351.
       (B) Outlays, $482,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,185,290,642.
       (B) Outlays, $502,042,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $508,544,506,797.
       (B) Outlays, $502,891,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $515,858,098,800.
       (B) Outlays, $504,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $531,835,180,620.
       (B) Outlays, $525,361,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $33,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $166,579,024,441.
       (B) Outlays, $170,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,542,167,817.
       (B) Outlays, $164,087,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,507,078,640.
       (B) Outlays, $161,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, 174,058,258,503$.
       (B) Outlays, $173,248,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $178,729,646,992.
       (B) Outlays, $177,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,762,771,139.
       (B) Outlays, $181,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,775,102,635.
       (B) Outlays, $193,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $191,156,854,593.
       (B) Outlays, $190,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $187,957,947,124.
       (B) Outlays, $186,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,405,233,201.
       (B) Outlays, $200,283,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $47,707,173,265.
       (B) Outlays, $51,229,224,208.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,772,740,952.
       (B) Outlays, $52,693,526,677.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,372,110,771.
       (B) Outlays, $51,732,859,609.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,813,152,904.
       (B) Outlays, $51,556,175,542.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,466,802,554.
       (B) Outlays, $53,290,287,822.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,249,674,911.
       (B) Outlays, $54,787,383,199.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,676,483,435.
       (B) Outlays, $57,175,876,713.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,454,977,724.
       (B) Outlays, $58,940,292,949.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,272,247,363.
       (B) Outlays, $60,740,753,844.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,947,151,651.
       (B) Outlays, $62,414,282,909.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $23,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,825,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $364,527,455,629.
       (B) Outlays, $364,527,455,629.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,767,708,539.
       (B) Outlays, $410,767,708,539.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $469,730,877,172.
       (B) Outlays, $469,730,877,172.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $517,032,292,681.
       (B) Outlays, $517,032,292,681.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,654,430,424.
       (B) Outlays, $557,654,430,424.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $583,121,216,629.
       (B) Outlays, $583,121,216,629.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $603,387,733,236.
       (B) Outlays, $603,387,733,236.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,088,639,892.
       (B) Outlays, $618,088,639,892.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $623,301,410,548.
       (B) Outlays, $623,301,410,548.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,928,755,085.
       (B) Outlays, $620,928,755,085.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$85,168,180,447.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,367,705,942.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,768,588,431.
       (B) Outlays, -$73,377,282,997.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,007,336,916.
       (B) Outlays, -$91,392,129,561.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$107,257,928,704.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,115,606,117.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$120,538,310,875.
       (B) Outlays, -$112,317,659,215.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$126,001,335,995.
       (B) Outlays, -$119,487,538,544.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$176,422,893,971.
       (B) Outlays, -$157,543,531,001.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$148,027,713,468.
       (B) Outlays, -$134,530,970,997.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$149,789,895,183.
       (B) Outlays, -$138,129,598,581.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$178,976,219,310.
       (B) Outlays, -$156,393,874,346.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$73,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$73,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$96,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$96,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$99,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$104,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$104,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$111,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$111,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$117,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$117,896,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $57,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,289,626,954.

[[Page H1950]]

       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,715,564,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,758,382,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,117,067,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submission Providing for Repeal of Obamacare.--Not 
     later than July 15, 2015, the committees named in subsection 
     (b) shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives to carry out this 
     section.
       (b) Instructions.--
       (1) 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 $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.
       (2) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.
       (3) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways and 
     Means shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Estimating Assumptions.--
       (1) Assumptions.--In the House, for purposes of titles III 
     and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall use the baseline underlying 
     the Congressional Budget Office's Budget and Economic 
     Outlook: 2015 to 2025 (January 2015) when making estimates of 
     any bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon. If adjustments to the baseline are 
     made subsequent to the adoption of this concurrent 
     resolution, then such chair shall determine whether to use 
     any of these adjustments when making such estimates.
       (2) Intent.--The authority set forth in paragraph (1) 
     should only be exercised if the estimates used to determine 
     the compliance of such measures with the budgetary 
     requirements included in the concurrent resolution are 
     inaccurate because adjustments made to the baseline are 
     inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the budgetary 
     levels set forth in this concurrent resolution. Such 
     inaccurate adjustments made after the adoption of this 
     concurrent resolution may include selected adjustments for 
     rulemaking, judicial actions, adjudication, and 
     interpretative rules that have major budgetary effects and 
     are inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the 
     budgetary levels set forth in this concurrent resolution.
       (3) Congressional budget office estimates.--Upon the 
     request of the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House for any measure, the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     prepare an estimate based on the baseline determination made 
     by such chair pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (b) Repeal of the President's Health Care Law Through 
     Reconciliation.--In preparing their submissions under section 
     201(a) to the Committee on the Budget, the committees named 
     in section 201(b) shall--
       (1) note the policies described in the report accompanying 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget that repeal the 
     Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of 
     the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; and
       (2) determine the most effective methods by which the 
     health care laws referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     repealed in their entirety.
       (c) Revision of Budgetary Levels.--
       (1) Submission.--Upon the submission to the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House of a recommendation that has complied 
     with its reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of 
     section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Conference report.--Upon the submission to the House of 
     a conference report recommending a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution in which a committee has complied with its 
     reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of this section, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House may 
     file with the House appropriately revised allocations under 
     section 302(a) of such Act and revised functional levels and 
     aggregates.
       (3) Revision.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Guidance.--In the House, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may develop additional guidelines providing 
     further information, budgetary levels and amounts, and other 
     explanatory material to supplement the instructions included 
     in this concurrent resolution pursuant to section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and set forth in section 
     201.
       (b) Publication.--In the House, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may cause the material prepared pursuant to 
     subsection (a) to be printed in the Congressional Record on 
     the appropriate date, but not later than the date set forth 
     in this title on which committees must submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget in order to 
     comply with the reconciliation instructions set forth in 
     section 201.

     SEC. 204. POLICY STATEMENT ON RECONCILATION TO REPEAL 
                   OBAMACARE.

       It is the policy of this resolution that the reconciliation 
     submissions set forth in section 201 shall fully repeal 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).

                     TITLE III--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. COST ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR LEGISLATION TO INCORPORATE 
                   MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS.

       (a) CBO Estimates.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, an estimate provided by the Congressional 
     Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 for any major legislation considered in the House 
     or the Senate during fiscal year 2016 shall, to the extent 
     practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in 
     economic output, employment, capital stock, and other 
     macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.
       (b) Joint Committee on Taxation Estimates.--For purposes of 
     the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, any estimate 
     provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation to the Director 
     of the Congressional Budget Office under section 201(f) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major 
     legislation shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the 
     budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, 
     capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting 
     from such legislation.
       (c) Contents.--Any estimate referred to in this section 
     shall, to the extent practicable, include--
       (1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects 
     (including macroeconomic variables described in subsections 
     (a) and (b)) of such legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
     beginning after the last fiscal year of this concurrent 
     resolution sets forth budgetary levels required by section 
     301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the 
     source of data underlying that estimate.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``major legislation'' means any bill or joint 
     resolution--
       (A) for which an estimate is required to be prepared 
     pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and that causes a gross budgetary effect (before 
     incorporating macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year over 
     the years of the most recently agreed to concurrent 
     resolution on the budget equal to or greater than 0.25 
     percent of the current projected gross domestic product of 
     the United States for that fiscal year; or
       (B) designated as such by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget for all direct spending legislation other than revenue 
     legislation or the Member who is chair or vice chair, as 
     applicable, of the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue 
     legislation; and
       (2) the term ``budgetary effects'' means changes in 
     revenues, budget authority, outlays, and deficits.

     SEC. 302. LIMITATION ON MEASURES AFFECTING SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   SOLVENCY.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, it shall not be in order to consider in the 
     House or the Senate a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reduces 
     the actuarial balance by at least .01 percent of the present 
     value of future taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund established under section 
     201(a) of the Social Security Act for the 75-year period 
     utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of 
     Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a measure 
     that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined 
     balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 
     75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of 
     the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 303. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of

[[Page H1951]]

     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 enforcing 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 
     discretionary amounts described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 304. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF 
                   THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       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. 305. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in 
     subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in 
     the report to accompany this concurrent resolution or the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers to accompany this 
     concurrent resolution under the heading:
       (1) General.--``Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''; and
       (2) Veterans.--``Veterans Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--The aggregate level of advance 
     appropriations shall not exceed--
       (1) General.--$28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     all programs identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1); and
       (2) Veterans.--$63,271,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs identified 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Definition.--The term ``advance appropriation'' means 
     any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or 
     joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, making general appropriations or continuing 
     appropriations, for the fiscal year following fiscal year 
     2016.

     SEC. 306. FAIR VALUE CREDIT ESTIMATES.

       (a) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or 
     ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate 
     of the budgetary effects of a measure prepared by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office under the terms 
     of title V of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, ``credit 
     reform'' shall, as a supplement to such estimate, and 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.
       (b) Fair Value Estimates for Housing and Student Loan 
     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 budgetary effects 
     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 budgetary effect related to a housing, 
     residential mortgage or student loan program under title V of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 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 effect.
       (c) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a) 
     or (b), 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. 307. 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 in the fiscal year following the last 
     fiscal year of this concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 308. ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
                   GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Separate OCO/GWOT Allocation.--In the House, there 
     shall be a separate allocation of new budget authority and 
     outlays provided to the Committee on Appropriations for the 
     purposes of Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism.
       (b) Application.--For purposes of enforcing the separate 
     allocation referred to in subsection (a) 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 2016. Section 302(c) of such Act shall 
     not apply to such separate allocation.
       (c) Designations.--New budget authority or outlays counting 
     toward the allocation established by subsection (a) shall be 
     designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Adjustments.--For purposes of subsection (a) for fiscal 
     year 2016, 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. 309. ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVED CONTROL OF BUDGETARY 
                   RESOURCES.

       (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending 
     Levels.--In the House, if a committee (other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or offers any amendment thereto or submits a 
     conference report thereon, providing for a decrease in direct 
     spending (budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for 
     any fiscal year and also provides for an authorization of 
     appropriations for the same purpose, upon the enactment of 
     such measure, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     decrease the allocation to such committee and increase the 
     allocation of discretionary spending (budget authority and 
     outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2016 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) Determinations.--In the House, for the purpose of 
     enforcing this concurrent resolution, the allocations and 
     aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for fiscal year 2016 and the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through fiscal year 2025 shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget and such chair may adjust applicable levels of this 
     concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 310. CONCEPTS, AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS AND APPLICATION.

       (a) Concepts, Allocations, and Application.--In the House--
       (1) upon a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution accordingly;
       (2) any adjustments of the allocations, aggregates, and 
     other budgetary levels made pursuant to this concurrent 
     resolution shall--
       (A) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (B) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable;
       (3) section 202 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) shall 
     have no force or effect for any reconciliation bill reported 
     pursuant to instructions set forth in this concurrent 
     resolution;
       (4) the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary 
     levels to reflect changes resulting from the most recently 
     published or adjusted baseline of the Congressional Budget 
     Office; and
       (5) the term ``budget year'' means the most recent fiscal 
     year for which a concurrent resolution on the budget has been 
     adopted.
       (b) Aggregates, Allocations and Application.--In the House, 
     for purposes of this concurrent resolution and budget 
     enforcement--
       (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 budgetary 
     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 207 of this 
     concurrent resolution; and
       (2) 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.

     SEC. 311. 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.

[[Page H1952]]

                 TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 401. DIRECT SPENDING.

       (a) Means-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For means-tested direct spending, the average rate of 
     growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2016 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2016 is 4.6 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 resolution applies the 
     lessons of welfare reform to both the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program and Medicaid.
       (B) For Medicaid, this resolution recommends conversion 
     from direct spending to a discretionary program subject to 
     appropriation. Pending this reform, this resolution assumes 
     the conversion of the Federal share of Medicaid spending into 
     a flexible State allotment tailored to meet each State's 
     needs. 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 resolution assumes the repeal of 
     the Medicaid expansions in the President's health care law, 
     relieving State governments of its crippling one-size-fits-
     all enrollment mandates.
       (C) For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
     recommends conversion from direct spending to a discretionary 
     program subject to appropriation. Pending this reform, this 
     resolution assumes the conversion of the program into a 
     flexible State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs. 
     The allotment would increase based on the Department of 
     Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan index and beneficiary growth. 
     Such a reform would provide incentives for States to ensure 
     dollars will go towards those who need them most. 
     Additionally, it requires that more stringent work 
     requirements and time limits apply under the program.
       (b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average rate 
     of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2016 is 5.4 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 2016 is 5.5 
     percent under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending:
       (A) For Medicare, this resolution advances policies to put 
     seniors, not the Federal Government, in control of their 
     health care decisions. Those in or near retirement will see 
     no changes, while future retirees would be given a choice of 
     private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-
     service Medicare program. Medicare would provide a premium-
     support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of 
     the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost. 
     The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so 
     that the sick would receive higher payments if their 
     conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive 
     additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and 
     wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater 
     share of their premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how 
     their health care dollars are spent will force providers to 
     compete against each other on price and quality. This market 
     competition will act as a real check on widespread waste and 
     skyrocketing health care costs.
       (B) In keeping with a recommendation from the National 
     Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, this 
     resolution calls for Federal employees--including Members of 
     Congress and congressional staff--to make greater 
     contributions toward their own retirement.

                         TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 501. 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. 502. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 
                   OBAMACARE.

       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, 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 2016 
     through 2025.

     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 2016 
     through 2025.

     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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 505. 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 2016 
     through 2025 when the macroeconomic effects of such reforms 
     are taken into account.

     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 2016 through 2025.

     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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 508. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION 
                   REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure reforms the Federal transportation funding system, 
     but only if such measure would not increase the deficit over 
     the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 509. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE POVERTY AND 
                   INCREASE OPPORTUNITY AND UPWARD MOBILITY.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure reforms policies and programs to reduce poverty and 
     increase opportunity and upward mobility, but only if such 
     measure would neither adversely impact job creation nor 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 510. 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.

     SEC. 511. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE ACCOUNT FOR REFORMING SNAP.

       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 the supplemental 
     nutrition assistance program (SNAP).

     SEC. 512. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   DISABILITY INSURANCE REFORM.

       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

[[Page H1953]]

     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that reforms the Social 
     Security Disability Insurance program under title II of the 
     Social Security Act.

     SEC. 513. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure extends the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 514. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, expands access to, and 
     improves, as determined by such chair, graduate medical 
     education programs, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 515. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FEDERAL RETIREMENT 
                   REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, improves and updates the 
     Federal retirement system, as determined by such chair, but 
     only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 516. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFENSE SEQUESTER 
                   REPLACEMENT.

       The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure supports the following activities: Department of 
     Defense training and maintenance associated with combat 
     readiness, modernization of equipment, auditability of 
     financial statements, or military compensation and benefit 
     reforms, by the amount provided for these purposes, but only 
     if such measure would not increase the deficit (without 
     counting any net revenue increases in that measure) over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

                      TITLE VI--POLICY STATEMENTS

     SEC. 601. 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. 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPLACING THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   HEALTH CARE LAW.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The President's health care law put Washington's 
     priorities first, and not patients'. The Affordable Care Act 
     (ACA) has failed to reduce health care premiums as promised; 
     instead, the law mandated benefits and coverage levels, 
     denying patients the opportunity to choose the type of 
     coverage that best suits their health needs and driving up 
     health coverage costs. A typical family's health care 
     premiums were supposed to decline by $2,500 a year; instead, 
     according to the 2014 Employer Health Benefits Survey, health 
     care premiums have increased by 7 percent for individuals and 
     families since 2012.
       (2) The President pledged ``If you like your health care 
     plan, you can keep your health care plan.'' Instead, the 
     nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates 9 
     million Americans with employment-based health coverage will 
     lose those plans due to the President's health care law, 
     further limiting patient choice.
       (3) Then-Speaker of the House, Pelosi, said that the 
     President's health care law would create 4 million jobs over 
     the life of the law and almost 400,000 jobs immediately. 
     Instead, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
     reduction in hours worked due to Obamacare represents a 
     decline of about 2.0 to 2.5 million full-time equivalent 
     workers, compared with what would have occurred in the 
     absence of the law. The full impact on labor represents a 
     reduction in employment by 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent, while 
     additional studies show less modest results. A recent study 
     by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimates 
     that Obamacare will reduce employment by up to 3 percent, or 
     about 4 million full-time equivalent workers.
       (4) The President has charged the Independent Payment 
     Advisory Board, a panel of unelected bureaucrats, with 
     cutting Medicare by an additional $20.9 billion over the next 
     ten years, according to the President's most recent budget.
       (5) Since ACA was signed into law, the administration has 
     repeatedly failed to implement it as written. The President 
     has unilaterally acted to make a total of 28 changes, delays, 
     and exemptions. The President has signed into law another 17 
     changes made by Congress. The Supreme Court struck down the 
     forced expansion of Medicaid; ruled the individual 
     ``mandate'' could only be characterized as a tax to remain 
     constitutional; and rejected the requirement that closely 
     held companies provide health insurance to their employees if 
     doing so violates these companies' religious beliefs. Even 
     now, almost five years after enactment, the Supreme Court 
     continues to evaluate the legality of how the President's 
     administration has implemented the law. All of these changes 
     prove the folly underlying the entire program health care in 
     the United States cannot be run from a centralized 
     bureaucracy.
       (6) The President's health care law is unaffordable, 
     intrusive, overreaching, destructive, and unworkable. The law 
     should be fully repealed, allowing for real, patient-centered 
     health care reform: the development of real health care 
     reforms that puts patients first, that make affordable, 
     quality health care available to all Americans, and that 
     build on the innovation and creativity of all the 
     participants in the health care sector.
       (b) Policy on Replacing the President's Health Care Law.--
     It is the policy of this resolution that the President's 
     health care law must not only be repealed, but also replaced 
     by enacting the American Health Care Reform Act.

     SEC. 603. 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 
     Medicare Trustees Report--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2030 and unable to pay scheduled benefits;
       (B) Medicare enrollment is expected to increase by over 50 
     percent in the next two decades, as 10,000 baby boomers reach 
     retirement age each day;
       (C) enrollees remain in Medicare three times longer than at 
     the outset of the program;
       (D) current workers' payroll contributions pay for current 
     beneficiaries;
       (E) in 2013, the ratio was 3.2 workers per beneficiary, but 
     this falls to 2.3 in 2030 and continues to decrease over 
     time;
       (F) most Medicare beneficiaries receive about three dollars 
     in Medicare benefits for every one dollar paid into the 
     program; and
       (G) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy 
     and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6.5 
     percent per year over the next 10 years. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office's 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook, 
     spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent of gross 
     domestic product (GDP) by 2043 and 9.3 percent of GDP by 
     2089.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to protect those in 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.
       (6) The Medicare eligibility age is gradually increased to 
     keep pace with increases in longevity.
       (7) Medicare is simplified by combining parts A and B and 
     reforms to Medigap plans are implemented.

     SEC. 604. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAID STATE FLEXIBILITY 
                   BLOCK GRANTS.

       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.

     SEC. 605. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the 
     financial condition of Social Security becomes more 
     precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced:

[[Page H1954]]

       (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be 
     exhausted and program revenues will be unable to pay 
     scheduled benefits.
       (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and Survivors and 
     Disability Trust Funds will be exhausted, and program 
     revenues will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 2033, 
     benefits will be cut nearly 25 percent across the board, 
     devastating those currently in or near retirement and those 
     who rely on Social Security the most.
       (3) The recession and continued low economic growth have 
     exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing Social Security. 
     The most recent CBO projections find that Social Security 
     will run cash deficits of $1.7 trillion over the next 10 
     years.
       (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a 
     larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, 
     reforms should take into consideration the need to protect 
     lower-income Americans' retirement security.
       (5) The Disability Insurance program provides an essential 
     income safety net for those with disabilities and their 
     families. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 
     between 1970 and 2012, the number of people receiving 
     disability benefits (both disabled workers and their 
     dependent family members) has increased by over 300 percent 
     from 2.7 million to over 10.9 million. This increase is not 
     due strictly to population growth or decreases in health. 
     David Autor and Mark Duggan have found that the increase in 
     individuals on disability does not reflect a decrease in 
     self-reported health. CBO attributes program growth to 
     changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the 
     labor force and compensation, as well as Federal policies.
       (6) If this program is not reformed, families who rely on 
     the lifeline that disability benefits provide will face 
     benefit cuts of up to 25 percent in 2016, devastating 
     individuals who need assistance the most.
       (7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed on a 
     bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan 
     Commission'' which helped to address Social Security 
     shortfalls for over a generation.
       (8) Americans deserve action by the President, the House, 
     and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social Security. It 
     is critical that bipartisan action be taken to address the 
     looming insolvency of Social Security. In this spirit, this 
     resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to find solutions 
     by requiring policymakers to ensure that Social Security 
     remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution 
     assumes these reforms will include the following:
       (1) Adoption of a more accurate measure for calculating 
     cost of living adjustments.
       (2) Adoption of adjustments to the full retirement age to 
     reflect longevity.
       (3) Makes Social Security benefits more progressive over 
     the long term, providing those most in need with a safety net 
     in retirement.
       (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution that Congress and the President should enact 
     legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability 
     Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should 
     not raid the Social Security retirement system without 
     reforms to the Disability Insurance system. This resolutions 
     assumes that reforms to the Disability Insurance program will 
     include--
       (1) encouraging work;
       (2) updates of the eligibility rules;
       (3) reducing fraud and abuse; and
       (4) enactment of H.R. 918, the Social Security Disability 
     Insurance and Unemployment Benefits Double Dip Elimination 
     Act, to prohibit individuals from drawing benefits from both 
     programs at the same time.

     SEC. 606. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEANS-TESTED WELFARE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that:
       (1) Too many people are trapped at the bottom rungs of the 
     economic ladder, and every citizen should have the 
     opportunity to rise, escape from poverty, and achieve their 
     own potential.
       (2) 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.
       (3) According to the most recent projections, over the next 
     10 years we will spend approximately $9.7 trillion on means-
     tested welfare programs.
       (4) Today, there are approximately 92 Federal programs that 
     provide benefits specifically to poor and low-income 
     Americans.
       (5) 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.
       (6) It should be the goal of welfare programs to encourage 
     work and put people on a path to self-reliance.
       (b) Policy on Means-tested Welfare Programs.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that--
       (1) the welfare system should be reformed to give states 
     flexibility to implement and improve safety net programs and 
     that to be eligible for benefits, able bodied adults without 
     dependents should be required to work or be preparing for 
     work, including enrolling in educational or job training 
     programs, contributing community service, or participating in 
     a supervised job search; and
       (2) 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. 607. POLICY STATEMENT ON REFORM OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) SNAP.--It is the policy of the resolution that the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program be reformed so 
     that:
       (1) Nutrition assistance funds should be distributed to the 
     states as a block grant with funding subject to the annual 
     discretionary appropriations process.
       (2) Funds from the grant must be used by the states to 
     establish and maintain a work activation program for able-
     bodied adults without dependents.
       (3) It is the goal of this proposal to move those in need 
     off of the assistance rolls and back into the workforce and 
     towards self-sufficiency.
       (4) In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     is permitted to revise allocations, aggregates, and other 
     appropriate levels, including discretionary limits, 
     accordingly.
       (b) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes that, pending the 
     enactment of reforms described in (a), the conversion of the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program into a flexible 
     State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs.

     SEC. 608. POLICY STATEMENT ON WORK REQUIREMENTS.

       It is the policy of this resolution 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. 609. POLICY STATEMENT ON A CARBON TAX.

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

     SEC. 610. POLICY STATEMENT ON REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES 
                   BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

       It is the policy of this resolution that the Environmental 
     Protection Agency should be 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. 611. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB 
                   CREATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Although the United States economy technically emerged 
     from recession more than 5 years ago, the subsequent recovery 
     has felt more like a malaise than a rebound. Real gross 
     domestic product GDP growth over the past 5 years has 
     averaged slightly more than 2 percent, well below the 3.2 
     percent historical trend rate of growth in the United States. 
     Although the economy has shown some welcome signs of 
     improvement of late, the Nation remains in the midst of the 
     weakest economic recovery of the modern era.
       (2) Looking ahead, CBO expects the economy to grow by an 
     average of just 2.3 percent over the next 10 years. That 
     level of economic growth is simply unacceptable and 
     insufficient to expand opportunities and the incomes of 
     millions of middle-income Americans.
       (3) Sluggish economic growth has also contributed to the 
     country's fiscal woes. Subpar growth means that revenue 
     levels are lower than they would otherwise be while 
     government spending (e.g. welfare and income-support 
     programs) is higher. Clearly, there is a dire need for 
     policies that will spark higher rates of economic growth and 
     greater, higher-quality job opportunities
       (4) Although job gains have been trending up of late, other 
     aspects of the labor market remain weak. The labor force 
     participation rate, for instance, is hovering just under 63 
     percent, close to the lowest level since 1978. Long-term 
     unemployment also remains a problem. Of the roughly 8.7 
     million people who are currently unemployed, 2.7 million 
     (more than 30 percent) have been unemployed for more than 6 
     months. Long-term unemployment erodes an individual's job 
     skills and detaches them from job opportunities. It also 
     undermines the long-term productive capacity of the economy.
       (5) Perhaps most important, wage gains and income growth 
     have been subpar for middle-class Americans. Average hourly 
     earnings of private-sector workers have increased by just 1.6 
     percent over the past year. Prior to the recession, average 
     hourly earnings were tracking close to 4 percent. Likewise, 
     average income levels have remained flat in recent years. 
     Real median household income is just under $52,000, one of 
     the lowest levels since 1995.
       (6) The unsustainable fiscal trajectory has cast a shadow 
     on the country's economic outlook. 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. This debt overhang, and the uncertainty it 
     generates, can weigh on growth, investment, and job creation.
       (7) Nearly all economists, including those at the CBO, 
     conclude that reducing budget deficits (thereby bending the 
     curve on debt levels is a net positive for economic growth 
     over time. The logic is that deficit reduction

[[Page H1955]]

     creates long-term economic benefits because it increases the 
     pool of national savings and boosts investment, thereby 
     raising economic growth and job creation.
       (8) CBO analyzed the House Republican fiscal year 2016 
     budget resolution and found it would increase real output per 
     capita (a proxy for a country's standard of living) by about 
     $1,000 in 2025 and roughly $5,000 by 2040 relative to the 
     baseline path. That means more income and greater prosperity 
     for all Americans.
       (9) In contrast, if the Government remains on the current 
     fiscal path, future generations will face ever-higher debt 
     service costs, a decline in national savings, and a 
     ``crowding out'' of private investment. This dynamic will 
     eventually lead to a decline in economic output and a 
     diminution in our country's standard of living.
       (10) The key economic challenge is determining how to 
     expand the economic pie, not how best to divide up and re-
     distribute a shrinking pie.
       (11) A stronger economy is vital to lowering deficit levels 
     and eventually balancing the budget. According to CBO, if 
     annual real GDP growth is just 0.1 percentage point higher 
     over the budget window, deficits would be reduced by $326 
     billion.
       (12) This budget resolution therefore embraces pro-growth 
     policies, such as fundamental tax reform, that will help 
     foster a stronger economy, greater opportunities and more job 
     creation.
       (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 will 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 helping the economy grow and expanding opportunity for all 
     Americans.

     SEC. 612. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, and 
     promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The United 
     States tax code fails on all three counts - it is notoriously 
     complex, patently unfair, and highly inefficient. The tax 
     code's complexity distorts decisions to work, save, and 
     invest, which leads to slower economic growth, lower wages, 
     and less job creation.
       (2) Over the past decade alone, there have been more than 
     4,400 changes to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of 
     the major changes over the years have involved carving out 
     special preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various 
     activities or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 
     trillion per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and 
     highly complex.
       (3) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the 
     code end up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base, in 
     turn, requires much higher tax rates to raise a given amount 
     of revenue.
       (4) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up spending 
     $160 billion and roughly 6 billion hours a year complying 
     with the tax code - a waste of time and resources that could 
     be used in more productive activities.
       (5) 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.
       (6) Roughly half of United States active business income 
     and half of private sector employment are derived from 
     business entities (such as partnerships, S corporations, and 
     sole proprietorships) that are taxed on a ``pass-through'' 
     basis, meaning the income flows through to the tax returns of 
     the individual owners and is taxed at the individual rate 
     structure rather than at the corporate rate. Small 
     businesses, in particular, tend to choose this form for 
     Federal tax purposes, and the top Federal rate on such small 
     business income reaches 44.6 percent. For these reasons, 
     sound economic policy requires lowering marginal rates on 
     these pass-through entities.
       (7) The United States corporate income tax rate (including 
     Federal, State, and local taxes) sums to just over 39 
     percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Tax 
     rates this high suppress wages and discourage investment and 
     job creation, distort business activity, and put American 
     businesses at a competitive disadvantage with foreign 
     competitors.
       (8) By deterring potential investment, the United States 
     corporate tax restrains economic growth and job creation. The 
     United States tax rate differential with other countries also 
     fosters a variety of complicated multinational corporate 
     behaviors intended to avoid the tax, which have the effect of 
     moving the tax base offshore, destroying American jobs, and 
     decreasing corporate revenue.
       (9) The ``worldwide'' structure of United States 
     international taxation essentially taxes earnings of United 
     States firms twice, putting them at a significant competitive 
     disadvantage with competitors with more competitive 
     international tax systems.
       (10) Reforming the United States tax code to a more 
     competitive international system would boost the 
     competitiveness of United States companies operating abroad 
     and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
       (11) The tax code imposes costs on American workers through 
     lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and on investors 
     in diminished returns.
       (12) Revenues have averaged about 17.5 percent of the 
     economy throughout modern American history. Revenues rise 
     above this level under current law to 18.3 percent of the 
     economy by the end of the 10-year budget window.
       (13) Attempting to raise revenue through tax increases to 
     meet out-of-control spending would damage the economy.
       (14) This resolution also rejects the idea of instituting a 
     carbon tax in the United States, which some have offered as a 
     ``new'' source of revenue. Such a plan would damage the 
     economy, cost jobs, and raise prices on American consumers.
       (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. Washington has a 
     spending problem, not a revenue problem.
       (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should enact legislation that 
     provides for a comprehensive reform of the United States tax 
     code to promote economic growth, create American jobs, 
     increase wages, and benefit American consumers, investors, 
     and workers through fundamental tax reform that is revenue-
     neutral on a dynamic basis that provides for the following:
       (1) Targets revenue neutrality (relative to CBO's baseline 
     revenue projection) based on a dynamic score that takes into 
     account the macroeconomic effects of reform.
       (2) Collapses the current seven brackets for individuals 
     into just two, with a top rate of 25 percent.
       (3) Simplifies the tax code to ensure that fewer Americans 
     will be required to itemize deductions.
       (4) Gives equal tax treatment to individual and employer 
     healthcare expenditures modeled on the American Health Care 
     Reform Act.
       (5) Encourages charitable giving.
       (6) Repeals the Death Tax.
       (7) Eliminates marriage penalties and encourages families.
       (8) Repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax.
       (9) Reforms the current Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 
     that is given in a yearly lump-sum payment and replaces it 
     with a program that would allow workers to exempt a portion 
     of their payroll taxes every month.
       (10) Reduces double taxation by lowering the top corporate 
     rate to 25 percent and setting a maximum long-term capital 
     gains tax rate at 15 percent.
       (11) Sets a maximum dividend tax rate at 15 percent.
       (12) Encourages net investment, savings, and 
     entrepreneurial activity.
       (13) Moves to a competitive international system of 
     taxation.
       (14) Ends distortionary special interest giveaways, such as 
     the Wind Production Tax Credit.

     SEC. 613. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE.

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

[[Page H1956]]

     key parent activities in the United States such as 
     employment, worker compensation, and capital investment. When 
     United States headquartered multinationals invest and expand 
     operations abroad it often leads to more jobs and economic 
     growth at home.
       (8) American businesses and workers have shown that, on a 
     level playing field, they can excel and surpass the 
     international competition.
       (b) Policy on Trade.--It is the policy of this resolution 
     to pursue international trade, global commerce, and a modern 
     and competitive United States international tax system in 
     order to promote job creation in the United States.

     SEC. 614. 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. 615. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job 
     creation and dampened the economy, slowing our recovery from 
     the economic recession.
       (2) In the first two months of 2014 alone, the 
     Administration issued 13,166 pages of regulations imposing 
     more than $13 billion in compliance costs on job creators and 
     adding more than 16 million hours of compliance paperwork.
       (3) The Small Business Administration estimates that the 
     total cost of regulations is as high as $1.75 trillion per 
     year. Since 2009, the White House has generated over $494 
     billion in regulatory activity, with an additional $87.6 
     billion in regulatory costs currently pending.
       (4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation (Public 
     Law 111-203) resulted in more than $17 billion in compliance 
     costs and saddled job creators with more than 58 million 
     hours of compliance paperwork.
       (5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to date has 
     added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance paperwork, 
     imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs on the private 
     sector and an $8 billion cost burden on the states.
       (6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations 
     are primarily targeted at the coal industry. In September 
     2013, the EPA proposed a rule regulating greenhouse gas 
     emissions from new coal-fired power plants. The proposed 
     standards are unachievable with current commercially 
     available technology, resulting in a de-facto ban on new 
     coal-fired power plants. Additional regulations for existing 
     coal plants are expected in the summer of 2014.
       (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly forty percent 
     of the United States electricity at a low cost. Unfairly 
     targeting the coal industry with costly and unachievable 
     regulations will increase energy prices, disproportionately 
     disadvantaging energy-intensive industries like manufacturing 
     and construction, and will make life more difficult for 
     millions of low-income and middle class families already 
     struggling to pay their bills.
       (8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being retired 
     or converted as a result of EPA regulations. Combined with 
     the de-facto prohibition on new plants, these retirements and 
     conversions may further increase the cost of electricity.
       (9) A recent study by Purdue University estimates that 
     electricity prices in Indiana will rise 32 percent by 2023, 
     due in part to EPA regulations.
       (10) The Heritage Foundation recently found that a phase 
     out of coal would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 2023, 
     resulting in an aggregate gross domestic product decrease of 
     $2.23 trillion over the entire period and reducing the income 
     of a family of four by $1,200 per year. Of these jobs, 
     330,000 will come from the manufacturing sector, with 
     California, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, 
     New York, Indiana, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia 
     seeing the highest job losses.
       (b) Policy on Federal Regulation.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the 
     public burdened by excessive regulation, enact legislation 
     that--
       (1) seeks to promote economic growth and job creation by 
     eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and 
     simplifying Federal regulations;
       (2) pursues a cost-effective approach to regulation, 
     without sacrificing environmental, health, safety benefits or 
     other benefits, rejecting the premise that economic growth 
     and environmental protection create an either/or proposition;
       (3) ensures that regulations do not disproportionately 
     disadvantage low-income Americans through a more rigorous 
     cost-benefit analysis, which also considers who will be most 
     affected by regulations and whether the harm caused is 
     outweighed by the potential harm prevented;
       (4) ensures that regulations are subject to an open and 
     transparent process, rely on sound and publicly available 
     scientific data, and that the data relied upon for any 
     particular regulation is provided to Congress immediately 
     upon request;
       (5) frees the many commonsense energy and water projects 
     currently trapped in complicated bureaucratic approval 
     processes;
       (6) maintains the benefits of landmark environmental, 
     health safety, and other statutes while scaling back this 
     administration's heavy-handed approach to regulation, which 
     has added $494 billion in mostly ideological regulatory 
     activity since 2009, much of which flies in the face of these 
     statutes' intended purposes; and
       (7) seeks to promote a limited government, which will 
     unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs, 
     providing our Nation with a strong and prosperous future and 
     expanding opportunities for the generations to come.
       (8) Requires congressional approval of all new major 
     regulations (those with an impact of $50 million or more) 
     before enactment as opposed to current law in which Congress 
     must expressly disapprove of regulation to prevent it from 
     becoming law, which would keep Congress engaged as to pending 
     regulatory policy and prevent costly and unsound policies 
     from being implemented and becoming effective.

     SEC. 616. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 
                   DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings on Higher Education.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) A well-educated workforce is critical to economic, job, 
     and wage growth.
       (2) Roughly 20 million students are enrolled in American 
     colleges and universities.
       (3) Over the past decade, tuition and fees have been 
     growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2004-2005 
     Academic Year and the 2014-2015 Academic Year--
       (A) published tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 3.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation;
       (B) published tuition and fees at public two-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 2.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation; and
       (C) published tuition and fees at private nonprofit 4-year 
     colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 2.2 
     percent per year above the rate of inflation.
       (4) Federal financial aid for higher education has also 
     seen a dramatic increase. The portion of the Federal student 
     aid portfolio composed of Direct Loans, Federal Family 
     Education Loans, and Perkins Loans with outstanding balances 
     grew by 119 percent between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 
     2014.
       (5) This spending has failed to make college more 
     affordable.
       (6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama 
     noted: ``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 now stands at nearly $1.2 
     trillion. This makes student loans the second largest balance 
     of consumer debt, 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 2017 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 
     $5,775 in each year of the budget window; and
       (4) removing regulatory barriers in higher education that 
     act to restrict flexibility and innovative teaching, 
     particularly as it relates to non-traditional models such as 
     online coursework and competency-based learning.
       (c) Findings on Workforce Development.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) 8.7 million Americans are currently unemployed.
       (2) Despite billions of dollars in spending, those looking 
     for work are stymied by a broken workforce development system 
     that fails to connect workers with assistance and employers 
     with trained personnel.
       (3) The House Education and Workforce Committee 
     successfully consolidated 15 job training programs in the 
     recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
       (d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution to address the failings in the current 
     workforce development system, by--
       (1) further streamlining and consolidating Federal job 
     training programs; and
       (2) empowering states with the flexibility to tailor 
     funding and programs to the specific needs of their 
     workforce, including the development of career scholarships.

[[Page H1957]]

     SEC. 617. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF ABORTION.

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

     SEC. 618. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRANSPORTATION REFORM.

       It is the policy of this resolution that State and local 
     officials are in a much better position to understand the 
     needs of local commuters, not bureaucrats in Washington. 
     Federal funding for transportation should be phased down and 
     limited to core Federal duties, including the interstate 
     highway system, transportation infrastructure on Federal 
     land, responding to emergencies, and research. As the level 
     of Federal responsibility for transportation is reduced, 
     Congress should also concurrently reduce the Federal gas tax.

     SEC. 619. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For years, there has been serious concern regarding the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bureaucratic 
     mismanagement and continuous failure to provide veterans 
     timely access to health care and benefits.
       (2) In 2014, reports started breaking across the Nation 
     that VA medical centers were manipulating wait-list documents 
     to hide long delays veterans were facing to receive health 
     care. The VA hospital scandal led to the immediate 
     resignation of then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. 
     Shinseki.
       (3) In 2015, for the first time ever, VA health care was 
     added to the ``high-risk'' list of the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO), due to management and oversight 
     failures that have directly resulted in risks to the 
     timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and quality of health care.
       (4) In response to the scandal, the House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs held several oversight hearings and 
     ultimately enacted the Veterans' Access, Choice and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (VACAA) (Public Law 113-146) to 
     address these problems. VACAA provided $15 billion in 
     emergency resources to fund internal health care needs within 
     the department and provided veterans enhanced access to 
     private-sector health care under the new Veterans Choice 
     Program.
       (b) Policy on the Department of Veterans Affairs.--This 
     budget supports the continued oversight efforts by the House 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs to ensure the VA is not only 
     transparent and accountable, but also successful in achieving 
     its goals in providing timely health care and benefits to 
     America's veterans. The Budget Committee will continue to 
     closely monitor the VA's progress to ensure resources 
     provided by Congress are sufficient and efficiently used to 
     provide needed benefits and services to veterans.

     SEC. 620. POLICY STATEMENT ON REDUCING UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, 
                   AND UNAUTHORIZED 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 its report to Congress on Government Efficiency and 
     Effectiveness, the Comptroller General has stated that 
     addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs could ``lead to tens of billions of dollars 
     of additional savings.''
       (3) In 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 the GAO issued reports 
     showing excessive duplication and redundancy in Federal 
     programs including--
       (A) two hundred nine Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics education programs in 13 different Federal 
     agencies at a cost of $3 billion annually;
       (B) two hundred separate Department of Justice crime 
     prevention and victim services grant programs with an annual 
     cost of $3.9 billion in 2010;
       (C) twenty 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) seventeen separate Homeland Security preparedness grant 
     programs that spent $37 billion between fiscal year 2011 and 
     2012;
       (E) fourteen grant and loan programs, and three tax 
     benefits to reduce diesel emissions;
       (F) ninety-four different initiatives run by 11 different 
     agencies to encourage ``green building'' in the private 
     sector; and
       (G) twenty-three agencies implemented approximately 670 
     renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of 
     nearly $15 billion.
       (4) The Federal Government spends more than $80 billion 
     each year for approximately 1,400 information technology 
     investments. GAO has identified broad acquisition failures, 
     waste, and unnecessary duplication in the Government's 
     information technology infrastructure. experts have estimated 
     that eliminating these problems could save 25 percent or $20 
     billion.
       (5) GAO has identified strategic sourcing as a potential 
     source of spending reductions. In 2011 GAO estimated that 
     saving 10 percent of the total or all Federal procurement 
     could generate more than $50 billion in savings annually.
       (6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $106 billion in 
     improper payments in fiscal year 2013.
       (7) Under clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least 
     one hearing during each 120 day period following its 
     establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in 
     Government programs.
       (8) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal 
     year 2015, 32 laws will expire, possibly resulting in $693 
     billion in unauthorized appropriations. Timely 
     reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of 
     program justification and effectiveness.
       (9) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs should result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy on Reducing Unnecessary, Wasteful, and 
     Unauthorized Spending.--
       (1) Each authorizing committee annually should 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.
       (2) Committees of jurisdiction should review all 
     unauthorized programs funded through annual appropriations to 
     determine if the programs are operating efficiently and 
     effectively.
       (3) Committees should reauthorize those programs that in 
     the committees' judgment should continue to receive funding.
       (4) For those programs not reauthorized by committees, the 
     House of Representatives should enforce the limitations on 
     funding such unauthorized programs in the House rules. If the 
     strictures of the rules are deemed to be too rapid in 
     prohibiting spending on unauthorized programs, then milder 
     measures should be adopted and enforced until a return to the 
     full prohibition of clause 2(a)(1) of rule XXI of the Rules 
     of the House.

     SEC. 621. POLICY STATEMENT ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Government collects approximately $3 
     trillion annually in taxes, but spends more than $3.5 
     trillion to maintain the operations of government. The 
     Federal Government must borrow 14 cents of every Federal 
     dollar spent.
       (2) At the end of the year 2014, the national debt of the 
     United States was more than $18.1 trillion.
       (3) A majority of States have petitioned the Federal 
     Government to hold a Constitutional Convention for the 
     consideration of adopting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution.
       (4) Forty-nine States have fiscal limitations in their 
     State Constitutions, including the requirement to annually 
     balance the budget.
       (5) H.J. Res. 2, sponsored by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-
     VA), was considered by the House of Representatives on 
     November 18, 2011, though it received 262 aye votes, it did 
     not receive the two-thirds required for passage.
       (6) Numerous balanced budget amendment proposals have been 
     introduced on a bipartisan basis in the House. Twelve were 
     introduced in the 113th Congress alone, including H.J. Res. 4 
     by Democratic Representative John J. Barrow of Georgia, and 
     H.J. Res. 38 by Republican Representative Jackie Walorski of 
     Indiana.
       (7) The joint resolution providing for a balanced budget 
     amendment to the U.S. Constitution referred to in paragraph 
     (5) prohibited outlays for a fiscal year (except those for 
     repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts 
     for that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) 
     unless Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote of each 
     chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over 
     receipts.
       (8) In 1995, a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
     Constitution passed the House with bipartisan support, but 
     failed of passage by one vote in the United States Senate.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this resolution 
     that Congress should pass a joint resolution incorporating 
     the provisions set forth in subsection (b), and send such 
     joint resolution to the States for their approval, to amend 
     the Constitution of the United States to require an annual 
     balanced budget.

     SEC. 622. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                   CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) According to the most recent estimate from the Office 
     of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were expected to 
     hold $844 billion in unobligated balances at the close of 
     fiscal year 2015.
       (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending 
     previously made available by Congress that remains available 
     for expenditure.
       (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 canceling unobligated 
     balances of funds that are no longer needed.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
     Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees should

[[Page H1958]]

     through their oversight activities identify and achieve 
     savings through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated 
     balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 
     Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under 
     programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national 
     security, and Treasury authority to finance the national 
     debt.
       (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of 
     the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, 
     and other appropriate agencies should continue to make it a 
     high priority to review unobligated balances and identify 
     savings for deficit reduction.

     SEC. 623. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF 
                   TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

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

     SEC. 624. POLICY STATEMENT ON CREATION OF A COMMITTEE TO 
                   ELIMINATE DUPLICATION AND WASTE.

       It is the policy of this resolution 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. 625. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET PROCESS AND BASELINE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) In 1974, after more than 50 years of executive 
     dominance over fiscal policy, Congress acted to reassert its 
     ``power of the purse'', and passed the Congressional Budget 
     and Impoundment Control Act.
       (2) The measure explicitly sought to establish 
     congressional control over the budget process, to provide for 
     annual congressional determination of the appropriate level 
     of taxes and spending, to set important national budget 
     priorities, and to find ways in which Members of Congress 
     could have access to the most accurate, objective, and 
     highest quality information to assist them in discharging 
     their duties.
       (3) Far from achieving its intended purpose, however, the 
     process has instituted a bias toward higher spending and 
     larger government. The behemoth of the Federal Government has 
     largely been financed through either borrowing or taking ever 
     greater amounts of the national income through high taxation.
       (4) The process does not treat programs and policies 
     consistently and shows a bias toward higher spending and 
     higher taxes.
       (5) It assumes extension of spending programs (of more than 
     $50 million per year) scheduled to expire.
       (6) Yet it does not assume the extension of tax policies in 
     the same way. consequently, extending existing tax policies 
     that may be scheduled to expire is characterized as a new tax 
     reduction, requiring offsets to ``pay for'' merely keeping 
     tax policy the same even though estimating conventions would 
     not require similar treatment of spending programs.
       (7) The original goals set for the congressional process 
     are admirable in their intent, but because the essential 
     mechanisms of the process have remained the same, and 
     ``reforms'' enacted over the past 40 years have largely taken 
     the form of layering greater levels of legal complexity 
     without reforming or reassessing the very fundamental nature 
     of the process.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget that as the primary branch of 
     Government, Congress must:
       (1) Restructure the fundamental procedures of budget 
     decision making;
       (2) Reassert Congress's ``power of the purse'', and 
     reinforce the balance of powers between Congress and the 
     President, as the 1974 Act intended.
       (3) Create greater incentives for lawmakers to do budgeting 
     as intended by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     especially adopting a budget resolution every year.
       (4) Encourage more effective control over spending, 
     especially currently uncontrolled direct spending.
       (5) Consider innovative fiscal tools such as: zero based 
     budgeting, which would require a department or agency to 
     justify its budget as if it were a new expenditure; and 
     direct spending caps to enhance oversight of automatic pilot 
     spending that increases each year without congressional 
     approval.
       (6) Promote efficient and timely budget actions, so that 
     lawmakers complete their budget actions by the time the new 
     fiscal year begins.
       (7) Provide access to the best analysis of economic 
     conditions available and increase awareness of how fiscal 
     policy directly impacts overall economic growth and job 
     creation,
       (9) Remove layers of complexity that have complicated the 
     procedures designed in 1974, and made budgeting more arcane 
     and opaque.
       (10) Remove existing biases that favor higher spending.
       (11) Include procedures by which current tax laws may be 
     extended and treated on a basis that is not different from 
     the extension of entitlement programs.
       (c) Budget Process Reform.--Comprehensive budget process 
     reform should also remove the bias in the baseline against 
     the extension of current tax laws in the following ways:
       (1) Permanent extension of tax laws should not be used as a 
     means to increase taxes on other taxpayers;
       (2) For those expiring tax provisions that are proposed to 
     be permanently extended, Congress should use a more realistic 
     baseline that does not require them to be offset; and,
       (3) Tax-reform legislation should not include tax increases 
     just to offset the extension of current tax laws.
       (d) Legislation.--The Committee on the Budget intends to 
     draft legislation during the 114th Congress that will rewrite 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     to fulfill the goals of making the congressional budget 
     process more effective in ensuring taxpayers' dollars are 
     spent wisely and efficiently.

     SEC. 626. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL ACCOUNTING 
                   METHODOLOGIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Given the thousands of Federal programs and trillions 
     of dollars the Federal Government spends each year, assessing 
     and accounting for Federal fiscal activities and liabilities 
     is a complex undertaking.
       (2) Current methods of accounting leave much to be desired 
     in capturing the full scope of government and in presenting 
     information in a clear and compelling way that illuminates 
     the best options going forward.
       (3) Most fiscal analysis produced by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) is conducted over a relatively short time 
     horizon: 10 or 25 years. While this time frame is useful for 
     most purposes, it fails to consider the fiscal consequences 
     over the longer term.
       (4) Additionally, current accounting methodology does not 
     provide an analysis of how the Federal Government's fiscal 
     situation over the long run affects Americans of various age 
     cohorts.
       (5) Another consideration is how Federal programs should be 
     accounted for. The ``accrual method'' of accounting records 
     revenue when it is earned and expenses when they are 
     incurred, while the ``cash method'' records revenue and 
     expenses when cash is actually paid or received.
       (6) The Federal budget accounts for most programs using 
     cash accounting. Some programs, however, particularly loan 
     and loan guarantee programs, are accounted for using accrual 
     methods.
       (7) GAO has indicated that accrual accounting may provide a 
     more accurate estimation of the Federal Government's 
     liabilities than cash accounting for some programs 
     specifically those that provide some form of insurance.
       (8) Where accrual accounting is used, it is almost 
     exclusively calculated by CBO according to the methodology 
     outlined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). CBO 
     uses fair value methodology instead of FCRA to measure the 
     cost of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example.
       (9) FCRA methodology, however, understates the risk and 
     thus the true cost of Federal programs. An alternative is 
     fair value methodology, which uses discount rates that 
     incorporate the risk inherent to the type of liability being 
     estimated in addition to Treasury discount rates of the 
     proper maturity length.
       (10) The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that 
     ``adopting a fair-value approach would provide a more 
     comprehensive way to measure the costs of Federal credit 
     programs and would permit more level comparisons between 
     those costs and the costs of other forms of federal 
     assistance'' than the current approach under FCRA.
       (b) Policy on Federal Accounting Methodologies.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that Congress should, in 
     consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     public affected by Federal budgetary choices, adopt 
     Governmentwide reforms of budget and accounting practices so 
     the American people and their representatives can more 
     readily understand the fiscal situation of the Government of 
     the United States and the options best suited to improving 
     it. Such reforms may include but should not be limited to the 
     following:
       (1) Providing additional metrics to enhance our current 
     analysis by considering our fiscal situation comprehensively, 
     over an extended time horizon, and as it affects Americans of 
     various age cohorts.

[[Page H1959]]

       (2) Expanding the use of accrual accounting where 
     appropriate.
       (3) Accounting for certain Federal credit programs using 
     fair value accounting as opposed to the current approach 
     under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

     SEC. 627. POLICY STATEMENT ON SCOREKEEPING FOR OUTYEAR 
                   BUDGETARY EFFECTS IN APPROPRIATION ACTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     directs the Committee on the Budget to provide an allocation 
     of budgetary resources to the Committee on Appropriations for 
     the budget year covered by a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       (2) The allocation of budgetary resources provided by the 
     Committee on the Budget to the Committee on Appropriations 
     covers a period of one fiscal year only, which is effective 
     for the budget year.
       (3) An appropriation Act, joint resolution, amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon may contain changes to 
     programs that result in direct budgetary effects that occur 
     beyond the budget year and beyond the period for which the 
     allocation of budgetary resources provided by the Committee 
     on the Budget is effective.
       (4) The allocation of budgetary resources provided to the 
     Committee on Appropriations does not currently anticipate or 
     capture direct outyear budgetary effects to programs.
       (5) Budget enforcement could be improved by capturing the 
     direct outyear budgetary effects caused by appropriation Acts 
     and using this information to determine the appropriate 
     allocations of budgetary resources to the Committee on 
     Appropriations when considering future concurrent resolutions 
     on the budget.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of the House of 
     Representatives to more effectively allocate budgetary 
     resources and accurately enforce budget targets by agreeing 
     to a procedure by which the Committee on the Budget should 
     consider the direct outyear budgetary effects of changes to 
     mandatory programs enacted in appropriations bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments thereto or conference reports thereon 
     when setting the allocation of budgetary resources for the 
     Committee on Appropriations in a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget. The relevant committees of jurisdiction are directed 
     to consult on a procedure during fiscal year 2016 and include 
     recommendations for implementing such procedure in the fiscal 
     year 2017 concurrent resolution on the budget.

     SEC. 628. POLICY STATEMENT ON AGENCY FEES AND SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) A number of Federal agencies and organizations have 
     permanent authority to collect fees and other offsetting 
     collections and to spend these collected funds.
       (2) The total amount of offsetting fees and offsetting 
     collections is estimated by the Office of Management and 
     Budget to be $525 billion in fiscal year 2016.
       (3) Agency budget justifications are, in some cases, not 
     fully transparent about the amount of program activity funded 
     through offsetting collections or fees. This lack of 
     transparency prevents effective and accountable government.
       (b) Policy on Agency Fees and Spending.--It is the policy 
     of this resolution that Congress must reassert its 
     constitutional prerogative to control spending and conduct 
     oversight. To do so, Congress should enact legislation 
     requiring programs that are funded through fees, offsetting 
     receipts, or offsetting collections to be allocated new 
     budget authority annually. Such allocation may arise from--
       (1) legislation originating from the authorizing committee 
     of jurisdiction for the agency or program; or
       (2) fee and account specific allocations included in annual 
     appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 629. NO BUDGET, NO PAY.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 163, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of the 
Blueprint for a Balanced Budget, the Republican Study Committee's 
substitute amendment that will expand opportunities for middle class 
families, grow our economy, and strengthen our national defense.
  First of all, I want to say I appreciate Chairman Price and his hard 
work on the budget that is being presented from the Republican 
Conference, and I am looking forward to the continued debate as we make 
sure that we look forward to strengthening our economy and America.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very clear we are on the wrong path. Despite 
improving indicators, folks across the country know that our economic 
recovery has been sluggish at best. Over 90 million Americans are not 
participating in the workforce, wages are stagnant, and businesses are 
struggling with the uncertainty about what new tax or regulation is 
waiting for them just around the corner.
  No matter how many stimulus packages, shovel-ready jobs, and summer 
recoveries the President promises, things aren't getting better fast 
enough. Unfortunately, on many fronts the fundamentals are getting 
worse.
  Since President Obama took office, our national debt has increased by 
70 percent and has now soared past $18 trillion. To make matters worse, 
the President's recently proposed budget calls for even more taxes and 
even more spending, and never, ever balances.
  Fortunately, we now have a choice. We can continue down the road 
President Obama wants us to with a reckless tax and spend agenda that 
will add $8.5 trillion to our debt and does nothing to reform our soon-
to-be bankrupt social safety nets, or we can decide to make the bold 
and necessary decisions our constituents sent us here to make.
  With the Republican Study Committee's blueprint, we can fix our 
broken system, and we can build a better future for the American 
people. We do this by addressing our Nation's challenges head on.
  First, it is clear we must change Washington's out-of-control 
spending habits. If we don't, by 2023, we could be spending more money 
paying off the interest on our debt than we do on our national defense.
  I would like to show you a chart, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, under 
the President's plan, because of the addiction to borrowing, our 
Federal Government continues to rack up more interest payments year 
after year. Keep in mind, this is money that we have to pay as a 
Federal Government, that we cannot go to a line item and say, We are 
going to cut that particular payment. We have to pay the interest on 
our debt. This is locked in due to our borrowing.
  In fact, under CBO's projections, if our interest rates on government 
notes increase by just 1 percent for 10 years, this expense could go up 
by a whopping $1.75 trillion.
  I would like to show this in particular. Last year, in the 10-year 
window, this particular bar is $785 billion alone, much more than what 
our defense spending would cost.
  We have to act, and with the RSC blueprint we do. Our budget cuts 
$7.1 trillion in Federal spending over the next decade and balances the 
budget in 6 years. The only way we are going to ever start paying our 
debt is if we get to a balanced budget.
  By enacting commonsense reforms, we are able to have a surplus. By 
year 2021, we will have a surplus so we can start paying that debt 
down. If you look at the President's budget, you will never, ever see a 
balanced budget, and so we will never, ever deal with our debt.
  In addition, our budget puts forward a pro-growth set of tax reforms 
that will make the Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more competitive. We 
do this by lowering rates and simplifying brackets. We reduce taxes on 
small businesses and corporations, and we encourage money that is 
setting overseas to return home by transitioning to a fairer, smarter 
territorial tax system.
  To get the government out of one-sixth of America's economy, through 
reconciliation, our plan repeals ObamaCare in full. However, we replace 
it. We replace the failed law with the American Health Care Reform Act, 
a patient-centered, free market, and affordable way to provide health 
care for all Americans. This act allows individuals and families to 
deduct health care costs, expands access to health savings accounts, 
and creates options and choices for Americans to purchase their 
coverage across State lines.

[[Page H1960]]

  Our budget also strengthens national defense. Our Federal 
Government's primary role, number one constitutional responsibility, is 
the defense of the Nation. By providing our men and women in uniform 
with $570 billion in our base defense budget, we are able to ensure our 
military has the resources it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st 
century.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1962, discretionary programs made up a majority of 
government spending. Today, it is the reverse. So-called mandatory 
programs, like we see right here, are on autopilot, and this makes up 
two-thirds of the budget. As you can see, these programs are on a 
clock. We can see that Social Security Disability Insurance goes 
bankrupt in 2016. Social Security retirement for Americans all across 
the country goes bankrupt in 2034. And, of course, Medicare isn't too 
far behind that; it is actually in front of Social Security, and goes 
bankrupt in 2030.
  The clock is ticking, Mr. Chairman, and we need to do something 
sooner rather than later. This is very predictable and it is very 
preventable if we act now. The President doesn't do that. In contrast, 
our plan does, and it makes the critical structural reforms necessary 
to preserve these entitlement programs for current and future seniors.
  Let's not let the solvable problems of today become the causes of 
decline tomorrow. Let's stand together and let's pass a serious budget 
through a serious conversation that reforms the way Washington 
operates. Let's pass a budget that will allow opportunities for middle 
class families to flourish. Let's pass a budget that will keep America 
strong for years to come at home and abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we debated the Republican 
budget proposal as it came to the floor. We saw that even as Americans 
are working even harder every day, their budget would squeeze them 
more. It would squeeze middle class families and those working to join 
the middle class. It would squeeze students trying to get an affordable 
college education. It would squeeze seniors by immediately increasing 
the cost of prescription drugs, immediately increasing the cost of 
copays for preventive health services.
  This budget on the floor today squeezes those families even harder, 
even as both budgets provide another round of windfall tax cuts to the 
folks at the very top by cutting the top tax rate by over a third as 
they green light the Romney-Ryan plan.
  This particular budget actually will slow down economic growth over 
the next couple of years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 
Those are the nonpartisan professionals that analyze these budgets. 
They looked at the Republican budget and said: You know, it will slow 
down growth in the next couple of years.
  This particular version of the Republican budget will do so even 
more. Why would we want to slow down economic growth just as the trends 
are picking up? Look, we have got a long way to go to get everybody 
back to work, but we are on the right path, on the right trajectory. 
Why would we want to put on the brakes, as the Republican budget does, 
as well as the RSC budget, in the coming years?
  While the Republican budget we had on the floor just the other day 
has no answer, no immediate answer to the pending shortfall in the 
transportation trust fund, this particular budget unreservedly just 
divests the Federal Government of responsibility for most highways and 
transit projects that are currently supported by the Federal budget.
  I will say in closing that there is one redeeming quality to this 
budget, which is that this budget does not play games with the overseas 
contingency accounts, like the Republican budget brought to the floor 
by the chairman does. This does not use the so-called ``overseas 
contingency account'' as a slush fund. This budget funds defense in the 
same straightforward way that the President of the United States' 
budget does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to just mention that 
CBO is actually projecting that our economic growth is going to slow 
down. That is happening under this administration's policies, and it is 
not helping Americans recover as quickly as possible. This is a serious 
budget that does deal with those challenges, and it is straightforward. 
We believe we have to get to a balanced budget sooner rather than later 
so we can have a stronger economy.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Flores), chairman of the RSC.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Republican 
Study Committee budget for fiscal year 2016.
  I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, for the 
great work that he has done in crafting the blueprint for a balanced 
budget, a robust and responsible plan to tackle $18 trillion of 
national debt, along with the over $100 trillion of unfunded 
obligations, which are crippling the futures of millions of hard-
working Americans, their children, and their grandchildren.
  I also want to thank Chairman Price and the Budget Committee for 
their great work on the Conference budget. But today, I am proud to 
support the budget proposal put forth by the Republican Study 
Committee.
  The RSC budget will balance the Federal budget in just 6 years, 
providing a better future for our children and our grandchildren. It 
also reduces rampant government overspending by $7.1 trillion compared 
to current policy, and it gets rid of redundant and unconstitutional 
government programs that waste billions of precious taxpayer dollars.
  Hard-working American families know the importance of prioritizing to 
live within their means, and it is time the Federal Government learned 
that lesson as well.
  This budget upholds the Congress' sacred constitutional duty to first 
provide for our national defense. Maintaining a strong military must be 
Congress' number one priority, especially in this increasingly 
dangerous world.
  Our budget follows Ronald Reagan's successful strategy of ``peace 
through strength'' for our national security.
  Defense spending should be determined first and foremost by our 
security needs, capabilities, and the threats facing our Nation. 
Acknowledging that, this plan allocates $570 billion in base defense 
spending for fiscal year 2016 and provides for a total of $6.4 trillion 
in defense spending over the next decade.
  We also believe that we must work to grow America's economy, not 
Washington's bureaucracy. The best way that we can spur growth and 
encourage job creation is by getting the government out of the way of 
America's innovators and entrepreneurs. This means repealing ObamaCare 
through reconciliation and establishing patient-centered reforms for 
better American health care.
  The RSC budget also calls for replacing the current Tax Code with a 
new pro-growth Tax Code that will benefit all taxpayers and families. 
We need a simpler, fairer, more competitive Tax Code that will help, 
not hinder, America's opportunity economy. We also sunset the IRS and 
we end the death tax.
  Finally, this budget addresses the dire state of America's social 
safety net programs and puts them back on a path toward solvency and 
toward doing the right thing for America's families.
  Unless Congress acts, Medicare will be bankrupt by 2013, Social 
Security retirement will be bankrupt by 2033, and Social Security 
Disability Insurance will be bankrupt next year, in 2016.
  This budget introduces new reforms that strengthen America's social 
safety net so that it will be here for future generations. And we 
structure them in such a way to keep families together and to provide 
ladders of opportunity out of poverty. We don't keep people trapped in 
poverty.
  We in Congress have an obligation to the American people to live 
within our means and to be trustworthy stewards of taxpayer dollars. 
Unfortunately, Washington has fallen short.
  Voting ``yes'' on the RSC budget is an opportunity for this Congress 
to restore the trust of the American people and to show that we are 
carrying out

[[Page H1961]]

the important job that they sent us here to do.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the RSC budget and 
``yes'' again on the House Budget Committee budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), a terrific member of the Budget 
Committee.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. MOORE. Let me thank the ranking member and my colleagues on the 
other side for the tremendous effort and work that they have put into 
this budget.
  Mr. Chair, of course, I am opposed to the Republican Study Committee 
budget. This is the committee adopted budget on steroids. The 
Republican Study Committee, to kind of outdo their Republican 
counterparts, balances this budget in 6 years instead of 10, and it 
cuts it by $7.1 trillion in just 6 years.
  I can tell you, while I am opposed to this budget, I have to commend 
the Republican Study Committee for putting it on the table here in a 
very transparent manner. Rather than raising the defense budget by $9 
billion above the President's budget and putting all of those funds 
into the OCO account, at least they end the sequester and do it in a 
transparent, budgetary way. I commend them for that, but I do urge my 
colleagues to reject this budget.
  This budget raises taxes on the middle class. It divests in education 
for our students. It divests in infrastructure improvements for our 
roads, for our ports, for our bridges. There is much to be said for 
balancing a budget, but you not only can't do it on the backs of the 
poor, the elderly, the infirm, and children, but on the back of the 
economy.
  I am also on the Financial Services Committee, and we have been 
warned that growing inequality is not only bad for morale in our 
country, but it will destroy our economy in the long run.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will just point out really quickly that I appreciate the other 
side's compliments on how we budget for defense, but let's remember 
this, that defense is only 18 percent of the overall Federal Government 
spending.
  As you see on this pie chart, this is defense discretionary spending 
right here, $596 billion. This is nondefense discretionary spending. 
The rest of this pie, which is the rest of the $3.5 trillion in Federal 
Government spending, is untouched. It is on autopilot. Here is the 
interest. All of these programs continue to grow.
  If we don't protect these programs and reform them, this is only 
going to get squeezed more and more. If we want to protect the country, 
we have to recognize that we are going to have to do it in a way that 
puts our priorities in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Pittenger).
  Mr. PITTENGER. Thank you, Congressman Stutzman, for yielding me this 
time and for your hard work and leadership on the RSC's budget task 
force. Thank you, also, to Chairman Flores for his great leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, America's national debt is now well over $18 trillion. 
Because of out-of-control spending, we add another $1 million to the 
debt approximately every 30 seconds. The Republican Study Committee's 
Blueprint for a Balanced Budget takes important steps to rein in our 
bloated bureaucracy, cuts unnecessary regulations, and strengthens job 
creation while it increases transparency and oversight.
  Here is our budget proposal. It cuts $7.1 trillion in spending over 
10 years. It balances the Federal budget in 6 years. Imagine that.
  It repeals ObamaCare and replaces it with competitive reforms that 
will lower costs for all Americans while protecting the relationship 
between the patient and his doctor. It preserves Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps through commonsense reforms that 
bring these programs into the 21st century. It also addresses 
inadequacies in President Obama's budget by providing critical funding 
for our national security.
  Since I have started speaking, Mr. Chairman, we have added $2 million 
to the national debt. That is insanity. Our Founding Fathers never 
intended for Washington to provide massive, one-size-fits-all programs 
that will not create better opportunities for hard-working, tax-paying 
Americans. As well, we need to return control back to the States, where 
local leaders know the best solutions for their local problems.
  As a member of the RSC's budget task force, I am honored to place the 
priorities of North Carolinians ahead of Washington's tax-and-spend 
schemes. Please join me in supporting the RSC's Blueprint for a 
Balanced Budget, which will restore fiscally accountable principles to 
our Federal Government and better opportunities for the American 
people.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a distinguished member of 
the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, about the only thing any of the Republican budgets have 
done in recent years is to cut the deficit, ignoring altogether the 
desperate needs and declining wages of the people.
  This year, the American people will give Congress no credit for a 
budget that does not grow jobs and good wages. The Republican budget 
cuts growth by 2.5 percent, and it devastates almost 3 million jobs.
  Instead of using a readymade need in order to grow good jobs with 
good wages--the surface transportation bill that must be authorized 
this year--the Republican budget would, for the first time in our 
history, cut almost all new highway and transit funding. States would 
be left able to fill potholes but unable to begin a single new project.
  Infrastructure needs must be met at some point anyway, so we do 
ourselves no favor by our serial failure to meet the needs that also 
have been shown to be the best way to fuel the economy with good jobs.
  There is no magical way to cut our way into good jobs and begin to 
repair income inequality. The old-fashioned, American way of building 
America's neglected infrastructure is the best way today, as it was 
when President Eisenhower initiated the surface transportation bill 70 
years ago.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 2 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Maryland has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican 
Study Committee budget.
  It is a conservative, progrowth document that balances in 6 years, 
that repeals ObamaCare and replaces it with a patient-centered 
solution, that stops the President's lawless executive amnesty, and 
that simplifies the Tax Code. The budget also offers commonsense 
reforms to strengthen America's entitlement programs.
  The RSC budget accomplishes all of this while still fully funding our 
national security commitments by providing $570 billion in base defense 
spending, not through budget gimmicks. In a time of weak and uncertain 
White House leadership on national security, bad actors are given 
incentive to be more aggressive. We must not underfund our military at 
this time.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support the RSC budget and return 
America to a position of fiscal strength and stability.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a wonderful member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen, for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are debating the Federal budget at a time when 
America is experiencing an economic recovery--unemployment is down; gas 
prices are lower, and retirement accounts are healthier--yet that is at 
risk if the Republican budget is adopted.
  It would weaken America's recovery. How? The Republican budget turns 
its back on what makes America grow and on what makes America strong, 
including our students, medical and scientific research, and modern 
transportation systems and infrastructure.

[[Page H1962]]

  Democrats will offer a more optimistic vision for America that builds 
on our economic recovery. Democrats want everyone to succeed while 
Republicans shower tax breaks on the wealthy at the expense of hard-
working families.
  The people I know and meet work hard every day. They value good jobs, 
good schools, safe communities, and the promise of, when they retire, 
that they can live their retirement years in dignity.
  The Republican budget is not one for the hard-working people of 
America. The Republican budget is crafted by the special interests for 
the special interests. Republicans stack the deck against working 
families and small businesses. They refuse to find one tax loophole to 
close or change. If you are incredibly rich, then you are incredibly 
lucky because this Republican budget is for you; you pay less.
  If you are like the vast majority of Americans, hold on because you 
are going to pay more. If you are a student who wants to attend 
college, Republicans make it harder by cutting Pell grants and student 
loans. If you have a job in transportation, infrastructure, or at a 
port or at an airport, the Republican budget could cost you your job. 
It will, at the very least, put us farther behind.
  If you believe that America should remain the world leader in medical 
research and innovation, sorry, as the Republican budget slashes 
research at the National Institutes of Health, at our universities, and 
at research institutions.
  If you are an older American, the Republicans ask you to pay much 
more for Medicare and long-term care. Republicans take away that secure 
lifeline that has existed for decades since the Democratic Congress 
passed Medicare and Medicaid.
  In doing so, the Republicans break the promise to older Americans 
that, after working hard all of your life, you can live your retirement 
years in dignity, without the fear of poverty in your old age; you will 
pay more.
  The Republican budget is a cynical, special interest driven vision of 
America. In contrast, the Democratic budget invests in what makes 
America great and in what makes America strong.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. One noted economist recently advised that 
America has the strongest economy in the developed world right now, but 
the Republican budget puts that at risk in order to boost a special 
few.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic plan and 
what makes America great: a growing, healthy economy; our students; 
scientific research; modern infrastructure in America; and the great 
promise of our country.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), a terrific new member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. MOULTON. I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, the great 
ranking member and leader of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, when I took this office, I vowed to work in a 
bipartisan fashion, and I am committed to doing that. I have been 
pleasantly surprised at how many Republicans are willing--even eager--
to work across party lines. Unfortunately, that is not the case with 
the Republican budget before us today.
  The Republican budget not only fails to grow our economy, but it 
deprives many Americans of the resources and support they need to 
succeed. A budget is a value statement, and it is clear that what the 
Republicans are proposing today is bad for our working families, for 
our students, and for our veterans.
  I was proud to offer two amendments last week during the House Budget 
Committee markup, addressing issues that should have broad bipartisan 
support: our veterans and our students. Unbelievably, my Republican 
colleagues voted against funding to protect the VA from future 
government shutdowns and to provide more financial support to help 
students get the vocational training they need to succeed in a 21st 
century workplace.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chairman, no budget is ever perfect, but the 
Democratic resolution invests the most in our future by placing 
American families, students, and military servicemembers first.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Is the gentleman prepared to close?
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Yes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  As I said in my comments earlier, this budget suffers from all of the 
problems that the earlier Republican budget suffered from, but it does 
have one redeeming quality, which is that it does not use the overseas 
contingency account as a slush fund. It actually funds defense in a 
straightforward manner.
  In listening to the advocates of this budget, I thought maybe their 
accounting had been more sound on other fronts, but as I look at it--I 
look at the Republican budget and how much revenue it raises over 10 
years, and I look at the Republican study group's budget, which has the 
identical amount of revenue over 10 years--what that means is that we 
see the same budget quackery in claiming to balance because that 
revenue includes revenue from the Affordable Care Act, almost $1 
trillion worth.

                              {time}  1515

  It includes the savings from the Affordable Care Act, which both 
Republican budgets claim to repeal.
  You know what it doesn't include? It does not include the costs of 
all the tax bills that are coming out of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, including one being marked up today which would entirely get rid 
of the estate tax, meaning that it will benefit 5,500 people in this 
country at the cost of $269 billion a year. Seventy-five percent of 
this tax break is going to go to the inheritors of estates valued at 
more than $20 million. You add that to this budget, and it is even more 
out of balance.
  But it does point to the underlying theme in all the Republican 
budgets, which is let's give another tax break to the very wealthiest 
in this country; right? Let's cut the top rate for millionaires while 
we squeeze middle class families and those working their way into the 
middle class. They are going to increase the tax burden on them.
  The chairman of the committee, I think he went to Emory University. I 
think they have got about 5,500 students, maybe a little bit more 
undergraduate. This would provide almost $269 billion to a population 
of 5,500 households in the country--the folks at the very top--while 
they are cutting our investment in our kids' education dramatically, 
while they are cutting our investment in innovation and research that 
has helped power our economy, while they are devolving most of our 
transportation system away from the Federal Government, even though our 
Federal transportation system has helped power our economy and make us 
competitive in this very competitive world.
  So from the budget gimmicks that apparently are the same in both 
budgets to the fact that both budgets say to folks at the very top: You 
know what? We are going to give you another tax break while we squeeze 
everybody else in America; right?
  They increase the costs of student loans. You have got over a 
trillion dollars in student debt. Why would we be increasing the cost 
of student loans? They are going to start charging students interest 
while they are in college.
  They are going to require seniors on Medicare to immediately pay more 
for prescription drugs by reopening the doughnut hole.
  So hard-working families, students trying to go to college, seniors 
who are trying to have a secure retirement, they all get hit on the 
same day that they provide a huge tax break to 5,500 people. That says 
it all about what

[[Page H1963]]

both these Republican budgets do. They disinvest in our future; they 
squeeze hard-working families, students, and seniors, while saying to 
the folks who are already at the top of the ladder: We are going to 
give you just one more break. And go ahead and pull up that ladder of 
opportunity behind you; it doesn't matter. We are going to leave 
everybody else behind.
  That is not what America stands for. I thought this was the land of 
opportunity. But while they cut our investment in education, they don't 
cut a single tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit, and 
then they go and claim a balance that is phony.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone to reject both these Republican budgets. 
They are wrong for the country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would first of all just like to thank the RNC members for helping 
to put this budget together. It is a blueprint for a balanced budget. 
There are no gimmicks.
  What the gentleman is referring to is our revenue line highlights the 
benefit that Americans receive when we have tax reform. For example, 
you know, the gimmick that was sold in the health care law was that 
people were going to pay less in health care costs. I was at a Cracker 
Barrel a couple of weeks ago in Auburn in my district, and a lady comes 
up to me and says: Mr. Congressman, I would like to show you my story. 
I am now paying more in premiums. My premiums doubled. My out-of-pocket 
expense went from $500 to $5,000.
  That is more than a tax increase, Mr. Chairman.
  Our foreign policy is on the wrong path; our spending is on the wrong 
path; our economy is on the wrong path. We have got to get back to 
priorities and recognize, for our country to be strong economically, to 
be strong with our defense, that we have got to get our budget back 
into balance to make sure that we can pay off the $18 trillion of debt 
that our kids have to face. I have two boys, Payton and Preston, 13 and 
9 years old. They are going to have to pay the interest on this debt 
and the debt for years and years to come.
  I ask the Members of this body to take a serious look at the RNC 
budget, and I ask for their support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will 
be postponed.


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

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 114-49.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2016.

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016 
     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal year 2015 and for fiscal years 2017 through 
     2025.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.

                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 to reform the tax system to work 
              for hard working Americans.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the extension of expired or 
              expiring tax provisions.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicare improvement.
Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicaid and children's 
              health improvement.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for initiatives that benefit 
              children.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college affordability and 
              completion.
Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a competitive workforce.
Sec. 209. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and 
              service members.
Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for modernizing unemployment 
              compensation.
Sec. 211. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy 
              independence and security.
Sec. 212. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for full funding of the Land and 
              Water Conservation Fund.
Sec. 213. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 214. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for additional funding for the 
              Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Sec. 215. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the health care workforce.
Sec. 216. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for improving the availability 
              of long-term care services and supports.

                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 STATEMENTS

Sec. 501. Policy of the House on job creation.
Sec. 502. Policy of the House on surface transportation.
Sec. 503. Policy of the House on tax reform that works for hardworking 
              families.
Sec. 504. Policy of the House on building ladders of opportunity to 
              help hardworking families join the middle class.
Sec. 505. Policy of the House on women's economic empowerment, and 
              health and safety improvement.
Sec. 506. Policy of the House on the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 507. Policy of the House on the Federal workforce.
Sec. 508. Policy of the House on a national strategy to eradicate 
              poverty and increase opportunity.
Sec. 509. Policy of the House on rejecting the sequester.
Sec. 510. Policy of the House on Social Security.
Sec. 511. Policy of the House on protecting the Medicare guarantee for 
              seniors.
Sec. 512. Policy of the House on affordable health care coverage for 
              working families.
Sec. 513. Policy of the House on Medicaid.
Sec. 514. Policy of the House on investments that help children 
              succeed.
Sec. 515. Policy of the House on immigration reform.
Sec. 516. Policy of the House on national security.
Sec. 517. Policy of the House on climate change science.
Sec. 518. Policy of the House on financial consumer protection.
Sec. 519. Policy of the House on the use of taxpayer funds.
Sec. 520. 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 2015 through 2025:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,439,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,775,502,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,882,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,989,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,114,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,251,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,398,020,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,561,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,783,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,010,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,426,906,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $11,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $99,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $106,700,000,000.

[[Page H1964]]

       Fiscal year 2018: $120,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $132,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $144,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $150,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $168,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $228,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $286,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $341,000,000,000.
       (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 2015: $2,961,412,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,211,302,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,292,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,468,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,650,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,828,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,993,651,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,162,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,357,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,550,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,725,021,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,941,778,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,165,536,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,288,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,422,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,603,529,000,000
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,776,636,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,947,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,138,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,318,454,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,497,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $4,685,225,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     (on-budget) are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: -$502,501,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: -$390,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$406,643,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$432,965,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$488,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$524,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$549,227,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$577,406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$535,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$486,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: -$438,319,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,468,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,032,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,667,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,347,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,074,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $21,836,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $22,625,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $23,426,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $24,206,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $24,963,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $25,659,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,360,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,815,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,302,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,828,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,433,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,099,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $16,818,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $17,597,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $18,373,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $19,143,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $19,915,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2015 through 2025 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $596,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $590,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,380,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $582,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $593,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $575,837,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $601,639,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $588,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,930,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $597,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $606,885,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $622,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $645,784,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,080,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $638,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $672,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $655,940,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,611,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,492,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,779,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,555,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,347,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,872,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,166,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,805,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,881,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,948,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,279,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,293,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,667,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,491,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,641,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,091,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,846,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,102,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,652,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,453,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,173,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,024,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,523,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,212,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,685,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,721,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,935,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,463,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,510,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,898,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,222,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,856,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:

[[Page H1965]]

       (A) New budget authority, $21,384,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,024,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,162,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,954,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,879,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,247,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,692,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,075,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,525,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,145,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,483,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$17,323,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$29,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,487,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,902,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$406,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,066,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,755,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,736,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,569,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,236,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $95,061,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $108,674,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $109,913,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $114,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,517,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $17,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,511,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,694,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,894,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,754,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,758,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,687,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,708,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,979,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $107,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,660,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $121,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,742,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $122,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $134,976,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $139,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $136,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $142,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,745,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $147,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $144,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,609,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $148,664,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $153,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,116,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $481,126,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $515,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $529,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $567,738,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $590,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $592,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $616,322,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $647,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $638,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $667,158,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $701,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $700,370,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $734,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $734,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $770,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $769,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $806,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $806,360,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $539,669,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $539,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $583,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $581,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $584,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $584,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $588,208,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $588,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $656,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $704,939,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $704,788,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $756,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $756,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $854,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $854,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $877,624,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $876,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $890,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $889,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $986,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $990,740,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $516,580,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $512,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $539,209,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $533,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $548,714,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $542,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $553,915,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,191,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $573,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $567,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $587,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,673,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $601,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $594,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $621,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $620,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,671,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $626,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:

[[Page H1966]]

       (A) New budget authority, $644,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $632,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $667,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,847,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,621,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,563,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $153,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,672,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $168,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $172,347,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $169,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $172,607,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $177,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $182,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $181,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $185,682,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $185,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $193,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $193,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $190,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $189,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $203,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $202,706,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,043,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,804,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,498,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,656,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,291,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,489,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,336,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,920,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,806,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,819,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,258,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,971,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,428,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,788,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,299,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $325,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $325,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $368,173,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $368,173,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $420,786,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $420,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $493,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $493,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $559,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $559,871,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $622,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $622,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $672,197,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $672,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $723,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $723,968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $773,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $773,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $815,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $815,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $847,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $847,334,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$21,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$11,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,925,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,058,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,998,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$665,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$52,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,206,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,680,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,833,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,813,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$106,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$106,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,012,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,445,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$93,810,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,810,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,497,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$89,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$89,327,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$95,188,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$95,188,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$97,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$97,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$102,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$102,090,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$105,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$105,007,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $18,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $7,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $3,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:

[[Page H1967]]

       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $69,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $47,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $40,000,000.

                        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 2015 to fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 
     2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REFORM THE TAX 
                   SYSTEM TO WORK FOR HARD WORKING AMERICANS.

       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 reforms the tax system 
     to reward American workers, incentivize higher pay, and 
     increase the after-tax take home income of working families, 
     such as paycheck tax credits for American workers; incentives 
     for workers to save a portion of their income; incentives for 
     corporations to raise employee pay and/or provide employees 
     with ownership and profit-sharing opportunities; incentives 
     for investments in apprenticeships and other training 
     programs that result in higher skills and better pay; provide 
     tax relief to offset the additional and unique costs faced by 
     two-earner families; a modernized and expanded Child and 
     Dependent Care Tax Credit; or other reforms to the tax system 
     to make it work for the middle class and those working to 
     join the middle class, by the amounts provided in such 
     measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to 
     fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE EXTENSION OF 
                   EXPIRED OR EXPIRING TAX 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 provisions of 
     the tax code that have expired or will expire in the future, 
     including tax incentives for research and development, 
     renewable energy investments, charitable giving, economic and 
     community development, and tax relief for working families 
     and small businesses, by the amounts provided in such measure 
     if such measure would not increase the deficit for either of 
     the following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 
     2020 or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 204. 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, such as--
       (1) new incentives to encourage efficiency and higher 
     quality care in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal 
     sustainability;
       (2) payment accuracy improvements to encourage efficient 
     use of resources;
       (3) innovative programs to improve coordination of care 
     among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate 
     settings;
       (4) policies to hold providers accountable for their 
     utilization patterns and quality of care;
       (5) improvements to Medicare's benefit design to make care 
     more affordable and accessible for people with Medicare, 
     including improvements to programs that provide assistance 
     with premiums and cost-sharing to beneficiaries with limited 
     incomes; and
       (6) extension of expiring provisions;

     excluding any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report that makes any changes that reduce benefits 
     available to seniors and individuals with disabilities in 
     Medicare; by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 
     or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID AND 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH 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 improves Medicaid or 
     other children's health programs, by the amounts provided in 
     such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit 
     for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to 
     fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025. 
     Such improvements may include--
       (1) restoring the enhanced Medicaid reimbursement rates for 
     certain primary care services to Medicare levels using 
     Federal funds, and expanding the enhanced rates to rates to 
     additional health care providers;
       (2) providing States with tools to streamline enrollment 
     into Medicaid and CHIP and ensure continuity of care, and may 
     include permanently extending the Express Lane Eligibility 
     option for children or creating an option to provide 12-month 
     continuous eligibility for adults in Medicaid; and
       (3) providing more options for States to expand access to 
     home and community based long-term care services for seniors 
     and persons with disabilities, and to improve benefits.

     SEC. 206. 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 2015 to fiscal year 2020 
     or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025. Improvements may 
     include any of the following:
       (1) Changes to foster care to expand the number of at-risk 
     children for whom effective supportive, prevention, and post-
     permanency services are provided to promote safety, well-
     being, and permanency for vulnerable children.
       (2) Changes to encourage increased parental support for 
     children, including legislation that results in a greater 
     share of collected child support reaching the child and 
     policies to 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.
       (3) Regular increases in funding for the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to put the Federal 
     Government on a 10-year path to fulfill its commitment to 
     America's children and schools by providing 40 percent of the 
     average per pupil expenditure for special education.
       (4) Funding for research designed to improve program 
     effectiveness in creating positive outcomes for low-income 
     children and families.

     SEC. 207. 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: encourage States and higher education 
     institutions to improve educational outcomes and access for 
     low- and moderate-income students; ensure continued full 
     funding for Pell grants; or help borrowers lower and manage 
     their student loan debt through refinancing and expanded 
     repayment options, by the amounts provided in such measure if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 
     or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 208. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A COMPETITIVE 
                   WORKFORCE.

       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 helps ensure that all 
     Americans have access to good-paying jobs, including: fully 
     reauthorizing the Trade Adjustment Assistance program; 
     funding proven effective job training and employment 
     programs, such as year-round and summer jobs for youth; or 
     new initiatives such as apprenticeships involving 
     collaborations between employers, educators, and providers 
     and job training services, by the amounts provided in such 
     measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to 
     fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 209. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS 
                   AND SERVICE MEMBERS.

       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--

[[Page H1968]]

       (1) improves access and enhances the delivery of timely 
     health care to the Nation's veterans and service members;
       (2) improves the treatment of post-traumatic stress 
     disorder and other mental illnesses, and increasing the 
     capacity to address health care needs unique to women 
     veterans;
       (3) makes improvements to the Post 9/11 GI Bill to ensure 
     that veterans receive the educational benefits they need to 
     maximize their employment opportunities;
       (4) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded 
     or disabled military personnel or veterans, including 
     measures to expedite the claims process;
       (5) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled 
     military retirees to receive both disability compensation and 
     retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
       (6) 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 2015 to fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 
     2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MODERNIZING 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       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 modernizes unemployment 
     compensation, including providing additional learning 
     opportunities and training for unemployed workers, expanding 
     program eligibility to more workers, or making the program 
     more responsive to economic downturns, by the amounts 
     provided in such measure if such measure would not increase 
     the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal 
     year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal 
     year 2025.

     SEC. 211. 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;
       (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 2015 to fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 
     2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 212. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FULL FUNDING OF 
                   THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.

       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 full funding 
     for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by the amounts 
     provided in such measure if such measure would not increase 
     the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal 
     year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal 
     year 2025.

     SEC. 213. 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 2015 to 
     fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 214. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING 
                   FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       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 
     funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund beyond the base 
     levels provided by the Federal National Mortgage Association 
     (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 
     (Freddie Mac) by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 
     or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 215. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE HEALTH CARE 
                   WORKFORCE.

       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 
     contemporary health care workforce's ability to meet emerging 
     demands, by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2020 
     or fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVING THE 
                   AVAILABILITY OF LONG-TERM CARE SERVICES AND 
                   SUPPORTS.

       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 
     availability of long-term care services and supports for 
     senior citizens and individuals with disabilities, by the 
     amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2020 or fiscal year 
     2016 to fiscal year 2025. Such improvements may include 
     creation of a comprehensive long-term care insurance program; 
     pilot programs or studies to determine the best options for 
     improving access to long-term care services; or other 
     improvements to Medicare, Medicaid, or other programs to 
     provide increased access to long-term care.

                TITLE III--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 301. 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 2016 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 11-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.1 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending: The resolution 
     rejects cuts to the social safety net that lifts millions of 
     people out of poverty. It assumes extension of the tax 
     credits from the American Taxpayer Relief Act due to expire 
     at the end of 2017. These credits include an increase in 
     refundability of the child tax credit, relief for married 
     earned income tax credit filers, and a larger earned income 
     tax credit for larger families. It also assumes expansion of 
     the earned income tax credit for childless workers, a group 
     that has seen limited support from safety net programs, and 
     other impacts of a middle class and pro-work tax reform.
       (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 2016 is 5.4 percent.
       (2) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the estimated 
     average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during 
     the 11-year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.5 
     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. In other areas, the resolution assumes additional 
     funding for child care, early education, and children's 
     health; extension and expansion of the American Opportunity 
     Tax Credit, which assists with higher education expenses; and 
     funding certain tribal support costs that have been 
     previously annually appropriated. It also would create a 
     National Infrastructure Bank, an Apprenticeship Training 
     Fund, and a Paid Leave Partnership Initiative, which would 
     help States establish paid leave programs. The resolution 
     repeals the mandatory sequester required under the Budget 
     Control Act.

                    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 2017 for programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts identified in

[[Page H1969]]

     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 2018, 
     accounts separately identified under the same heading; and
       (2) for all discretionary programs administered by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (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 2016 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2016.

     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 2016 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 
     2016.
       (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 2016 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 2016.
       (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 2016 that appropriates $9,572,000,000 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 $667,000,000, 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 
     2016.
       (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 2016 that appropriates 
     $151,000,000 for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments, reemployment services and training referrals, 
     and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews for the 
     Department of Labor and provides an additional appropriation 
     of up to $30,000,000, and the amount is designated for in-
     person reemployment and eligibility assessments, reemployment 
     services and training referrals, 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 
     2016.
       (c) Procedure for Adjustments.--In the House, 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.--
       (1) In general.--If any bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     or conference report makes appropriations for fiscal year 
     2016 for Overseas Contingency Operations and such amounts are 
     so designated pursuant to this paragraph, then the Chairman 
     of the House Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose up to, 
     but not to exceed, the total amount of budget authority 
     specified in section 102(21).
       (2) Limitation.--Adjustments made pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     shall only include funding appropriated to the Overseas 
     Contingency Operations title of an appropriations bill for 
     war activities and related diplomatic and development 
     operations, or for activities related to countering urgent 
     national security threats, and shall not include funding for 
     regular, base budget activities.
       (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, as 
     adjusted by subsection (d).
       (d) Wildfire Suppression Operations.--
       (1) Cap adjustment.--In the House, if any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report making 
     appropriations for wildfire suppression operations for fiscal 
     year 2016 that appropriates a base amount equal to 70 percent 
     of the average cost of wildfire suppression operations over 
     the previous 10 years and provides an additional 
     appropriation of up to but not to exceed $1.5 billion for 
     wildfire suppression 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 
     additional amount of budget authority above the base amount 
     and the outlays resulting from that additional budget 
     authority.
       (2) Deficit-neutral adjustment.--The total allowable 
     discretionary adjustment for disaster relief pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall be reduced by an amount 
     equivalent to the sum of allocation increases made pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) in the previous year.
       (e) Procedure for Adjustments.--In the House, 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), (c), and (d) 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 
     114th 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.
       (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

[[Page H1970]]

     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 STATEMENTS

     SEC. 501. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON JOB CREATION.

       (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 nearly 800,000 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 12 million private jobs over 
     the past 60 consecutive months;
       (3) United States manufacturing has shared in this recovery 
     with manufacturing employment having grown over the last five 
     years, the first such extended period of growth since the 
     1990s;
       (4) 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;
       (5) millions of Americans remain unemployed or 
     underemployed, in danger of seeing a middle-class lifestyle 
     slip away or remain out of reach, and this issue is 
     especially acute in the African-American and Latino 
     communities, making it imperative that we push for extended 
     job creation which is broadly-shared; and
       (6) further job creation is vital to ensure that the 
     economy continues to recover and that the benefits of the 
     recovery are more broadly shared.
       (b) Policy.--
       (1) In general.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
     Congress should make it a priority to enact legislation to 
     help create jobs in the United States, remove incentives to 
     out-source jobs overseas and instead support incentives that 
     bring jobs back to the United States.
       (2) Jobs.--This resolution--
       (A) supports funding for President Obama's six-year, $478 
     billion surface transportation reauthorization proposal;
       (B) supports efforts for additional job creation measures, 
     including further infrastructure improvements, such as a 
     National Infrastructure Bank that can be used for a wide 
     range of infrastructure investments, including investments in 
     expanding clean energy production and energy efficiency, and 
     support for biomedical and other research that both creates 
     jobs and advances scientific knowledge and health, or other 
     spending or revenue proposals;
       (C) protects jobs in the United States by eliminating 
     unjustified corporate tax breaks that encourage firms to ship 
     jobs and capital overseas and shelter their profits in 
     foreign tax havens, including provisions that permit U.S. 
     companies to ``invert'' and pretend to move overseas purely 
     to reduce taxes--revenues raised by the elimination or 
     reduction of such tax breaks can then be invested in 
     infrastructure improvements and other job creation efforts; 
     and
       (D) supports a ``Make it in America'' agenda that seeks to 
     expand on the recent recovery in manufacturing jobs and help 
     encourage a resurgence of manufacturing in the United States 
     through job creation measures, including the development of 
     new domestic manufacturing institutes to conduct research 
     into innovative products and materials, the establishment of 
     a new investment fund of up to $10 billion to help American-
     made advanced manufacturing technologies reach commercial 
     scale production, and passage of other legislation to support 
     manufacturing in the United States.

     SEC. 502. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Supporting the President's six-year, $478 billion 
     surface transportation reauthorization investment will 
     sharpen America's global competitive edge in the 21st century 
     by allowing infrastructure expansion and modernization.
       (2) Many of our roads, bridges, and transit systems are in 
     disrepair, and fail to move as many goods and people as the 
     economy demands. The American Society of Engineers gives the 
     United States infrastructure an overall grade of D+.
       (3) Deep cuts to our transportation funding over the next 
     10 years will hurt families and businesses at a time when we 
     have major infrastructure needs and workers ready to do the 
     job.
       (4) Increasing transportation investments improves our 
     quality of life by building new ladders of opportunity--
     improving our competitive edge, facilitating American 
     exports, creating new jobs and increasing access to existing 
     ones, and fostering economic growth, while also providing 
     critical safety improvements and reduced commute times.
       (5) The highway trust fund provides critical funding for 
     repairing, expanding, and modernizing roads, bridges, and 
     transit systems, and according to recent CBO projections, it 
     is expected to become insolvent this summer. This could force 
     a halt to construction projects, which would put hundreds of 
     thousands of jobs at risk.
       (a) Policy.--It is the policy of the House to provide 
     funding in support of the President's proposed six-year, $478 
     billion surface transportation reauthorization that prevents 
     the imminent insolvency of the highway trust fund and 
     increases investment in our highway and transit programs. 
     Such an investment sharpens our competitive edge, increases 
     access to jobs, reduces commute times, makes our highways and 
     transit systems safer, facilitates American exports, creates 
     jobs, and fosters economic growth.

     SEC. 503. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAX REFORM THAT WORKS FOR 
                   HARDWORKING FAMILIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Americans today are working harder than ever, but their 
     paychecks are flat.
       (2) American families lost economic ground during the 2000s 
     and the Great Recession. U.S. Census data shows that median 
     household income fell 8.6 percent in real terms between 2000 
     and 2013, and is still no higher than it was in 1989.
       (3) Studies by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
     and Development (OECD), the International Monetary Fund 
     (IMF), and Standard and Poor's, among others, have concluded 
     that increased income inequality is a threat to economic 
     growth.
       (4) American workers are getting a smaller share of the 
     growing economic pie. For the period 1948-1973, labor 
     productivity increased 97 percent, and real hourly 
     compensation for workers increased at a similar rate: 91 
     percent. But from 1973-2013, productivity rose by 146 percent 
     and workers' compensation rose by only 18 percent.
       (5) Since the 1970s, economic gains have gone 
     overwhelmingly to the highest-income Americans, while the 
     middle class and most other hard working Americans have been 
     left behind. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
     between 1979 and 2011, after-tax incomes rose five times as 
     fast for the top one percent of households, whose annual 
     incomes average more than $1 million, than they did for the 
     middle 60 percent of Americans.
       (6) The tax code treats income from wealth more favorably 
     than income from work by giving preferential tax rates on 
     unearned income, and contains numerous, wasteful tax breaks 
     for special interests.
       (7) The top one percent of households receives a 
     disproportionate share--17 percent--of the benefit of major 
     tax expenditures, according to the Congressional Budget 
     Office. These preferences have exacerbated income and wealth 
     inequality.
       (8) Past Republican tax plans have made reducing taxes for 
     the wealthiest Americans the top priority. Republicans also 
     would repeal Affordable Care Act tax credits which help 
     millions of families buy affordable health insurance, abandon 
     important expansions to the Earned Income Tax Credit and 
     Child Tax Credit, and cut higher education benefits by 
     allowing the American Opportunity Tax Credit to expire. The 
     result has been legislation that increased deficits while 
     giving a disproportionate share of any tax cuts to the 
     wealthy. Such a tax increase would--
       (A) make it even harder for working families to make ends 
     meet;
       (B) cost the economy millions of jobs over the coming years 
     by reducing consumer spending, which will greatly weaken 
     economic growth; and
       (C) further widen the income gap between the wealthiest 
     households and the middle class by making the tax code more 
     regressive.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution to reform 
     the tax code to work for hard working Americans, to cut 
     special interest tax breaks for the top one percent, and to 
     close unproductive special interest corporate tax breaks and 
     loopholes, without increasing the tax burden on middle-class 
     taxpayers.

[[Page H1971]]

     SEC. 504. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON BUILDING LADDERS OF 
                   OPPORTUNITY TO HELP HARDWORKING FAMILIES JOIN 
                   THE MIDDLE CLASS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Even as the economy grows, wage stagnation and income 
     inequality persist, requiring additional ladders of 
     opportunity to help hard-working families join the middle 
     class.
       (2) Young adults with a college degree are much more likely 
     to be employed than those with just a high school diploma. In 
     2013, the unemployment rate for young college graduates was 7 
     percent versus 17 percent for those with only a high school 
     degree, but the difference was even bigger during the 
     economic downturn.
       (3) More than 8 million low-income students each year rely 
     on Federal Pell grants to help pay for college. Pell grants 
     are well-targeted; more than 73 percent of Pell grant 
     recipients have family incomes of less than $30,000 per year. 
     More than 10 million college students also rely on the 
     American Opportunity Tax Credit to help defray the cost of 
     college, but that tax credit expires at the end of 2017.
       (4) As college costs have continued to rise, total student 
     loan debt has quadrupled over the past ten years to more than 
     $1.3 trillion. More than 80 percent of that debt is from 
     Federal student loans. In 2013, more than two thirds of those 
     graduating from college had student loan debt, and the 
     average debt had grown to $28,400.
       (5) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax 
     Credit (CTC) encourage work and are some of our most 
     effective anti-poverty programs, and they have generally 
     enjoyed strong, bipartisan support from Members of Congress 
     and Presidents of each party.
       (6) Enhancements to the EITC and CTC enacted in 2009 lifted 
     1.6 million people out of poverty, including nearly one 
     million children. Many military families are among the 
     beneficiaries of these vital policies.
       (7) Wage inequality still exists in this country. Women 
     make only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the 
     pay gap for African American women and Latinas is even 
     larger.
       (8) More than 40 million private sector workers in this 
     country - including more than 13 million working women - are 
     not able to take a paid sick day when they are ill. Millions 
     more lack paid sick time to care for a sick child.
       (9) Nearly one-quarter of adults in the United States 
     report that they have lost a job or have been threatened with 
     job loss for taking time off due to illness or to care for a 
     sick child or relative, and 87 percent of the United States 
     workforce does not have paid family leave through their 
     employer.
       (10) The real value of the Federal minimum wage today is at 
     historically low levels, and has not been increased since 
     2009.
       (11) Increasing the minimum wage would give a raise to 
     millions of workers, lift many Americans out of poverty, and 
     put more money in the pockets of individuals who are likely 
     to spend additional income. This would help expand the 
     economy and create jobs.
       (12) A higher minimum wage will reduce Government spending 
     on Medicaid, public housing, nutrition assistance and other 
     income-support programs that provide assistance to minimum 
     wage workers. A higher minimum wage will also benefit 
     businesses by increasing productivity, reducing absenteeism, 
     and reducing turnover.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution to 
     accomplish the following:
       (1) That the House should broaden access to college, 
     including through new initiatives to make college more 
     affordable, increase college completion rates, and lower 
     student debt. This includes, but is not limited to, helping 
     millions of families afford the cost of college by: 
     permanently extending and improving the American Opportunity 
     Tax Credit; maintaining Pell grants as the primary source of 
     Federal grant aid; and accommodating legislation to help 
     borrowers lower and manage their student loan debt through 
     refinancing and expanded repayment options.
       (2) That the House should preserve key work and family 
     supports by permanently extending enhanced refundability of 
     the Child Tax Credit, permanently extending the increased 
     Earned Income Tax Credit benefits for married couples and 
     families with 3 or more children, and expanding the Earned 
     Income Tax Credit for childless workers and non-custodial 
     parents.
       (3) That the House should make a positive difference in the 
     lives of women, enacting measures to address economic 
     equality and support work and family balance through earned 
     paid sick leave, and earned paid and expanded family and 
     medical leave. The resolution provides funding to help States 
     establish paid leave programs.
       (4) That women receive equal pay for equal work.
       (5) That the House should pass an increase in the minimum 
     wage. A higher minimum wage will benefit both workers and the 
     economy as a whole.

     SEC. 505. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON WOMEN'S ECONOMIC 
                   EMPOWERMENT, AND HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Wage inequality still exists in this country. Women 
     make only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the 
     pay gap for African American women and Latinas is even 
     larger.
       (2) Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, 
     and the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation over the 
     last 45 years.
       (3) More than 40 million private sector workers in this 
     country--including more than 13 million working women--are 
     not able to take a paid sick day when they are ill. Millions 
     more lack paid sick time to care for a sick child.
       (4) Nearly one-quarter of adults in the U.S. report that 
     they have lost a job or have been threatened with job loss 
     for taking time off due to illness or to care for a sick 
     child or relative.
       (5) Fully 87 percent of the U.S. workforce does not have 
     paid family leave through their employers, and more than 60 
     percent of the workforce does not have paid personal medical 
     leave through an employer-provided temporary disability 
     program, which some new mothers use.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Congress 
     should make a positive difference in the lives of women, 
     enacting measures to address economic equality and women's 
     health and safety. Those measures include the following:
       (1) To address economic fairness, Congress should enact the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act, increase the minimum wage, support 
     women entrepreneurs and small businesses, and support work 
     and family balance through earned paid sick leave, and earned 
     paid and expanded Family and Medical leave.
       (2) To address health and safety concerns, Congress should 
     increase funding for the prevention and treatment of women's 
     health issues such as breast cancer and heart disease, 
     support access to family planning, and enact measures to 
     prevent and protect women from domestic violence.

     SEC. 506. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Over the years, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
     has faced funding shortfalls and was unprepared to meet the 
     demands of a new generation of returning veterans.
       (2) Access to quality health care and veterans' benefits 
     has been an ongoing challenge for the VA, highlighted most 
     recently in the ongoing claims backlog and veterans waiting 
     months for health care appointments.
       (3) Providing health care where veterans live and ensuring 
     a sufficient number of health care professionals, especially 
     in the area of mental health treatment, have also been 
     challenges.
       (4) The Government shutdown in the fall of 2013 led to 
     furloughs at the VA that slowed the processing of benefit 
     claims.
       (5) The President's budget includes an 8 percent increase 
     over current year funding, which provides the resources to 
     improve the timely delivery and the quality of health care 
     services, and to address other urgent issues, such as ending 
     veterans' homelessness.
       (6) The VA currently has advance appropriations for 85 
     percent of its discretionary budget. The residual 15 percent, 
     which includes funding for the day-to-day operations at the 
     Veterans Benefits Administration, remains vulnerable to a 
     Government shutdown.
       (7) Congress provided the authority to expand advance 
     appropriations for VA's three largest mandatory programs in 
     the FY 2015 Omnibus; Consolidated and Further Continuing 
     Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-235).
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that--
       (1) the President's requested level for veterans' 
     discretionary programs be fully supported so that the VA has 
     the resources it needs to ensure veterans get the benefits 
     they earned in a timely fashion;
       (2) advance appropriations be expanded to cover all of VA's 
     discretionary budget to prevent delays in veterans' benefits 
     and services during a Government shutdown;
       (3) the VA submit along with its annual budget a ``Future-
     Years Veterans Program'' that projects its needs over five 
     years to help facilitate the appropriations and oversight 
     processes; and
       (4) sufficient resources are provided for the VA's Office 
     of the Inspector General to guarantee veterans are properly 
     served and that resources are spent efficiently.

     SEC. 507. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Federal workforce provides vital services to our 
     nation on a daily basis. It includes those who patrol and 
     secure our borders, take care of our veterans, help run our 
     airports, counter cyber-attacks, find cures to deadly 
     diseases, and keep our food supply safe.
       (2) Last year alone, Federal employees addressed a wide 
     range of national priorities, from responding to the Ebola 
     outbreak to helping reduce veterans' homelessness to helping 
     millions obtain affordable health care.
       (3) Veterans make up 30 percent of the Federal workforce.
       (4) Many Federal workers are paid at a rate that is far 
     below their private sector counterparts.
       (5) The Federal workforce is older than in past decades and 
     older than the private sector workforce. It is estimated that 
     twenty-

[[Page H1972]]

     five percent of the Federal workforce intends to retire over 
     the next five years.
       (6) Over the last five years, the Federal workforce has 
     contributed more than $150 billion toward reducing the 
     country's deficits in the form of pay freezes, pay raises 
     insufficient to keep pace with inflation, and increased 
     retirement contributions.
       (7) The Federal workforce endured furloughs from 
     sequestration and the 16-day Government shutdown.
       (8) Since 1975, the security and non-security parts of the 
     Federal workforce have declined 33 and 38 percent, 
     respectively, relative to the population.
       (9) Nearly all of the increase in the Federal civilian 
     workforce from 2001 and 2014 is due to increases at security-
     related agencies, including the Department of Defense, 
     Department of Homeland Security, Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, and the Department of Justice.
       (10) Proposals to reduce the size of the workforce at non-
     security agencies by 10 percent have excluded an assessment 
     of their impact on Government services.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Federal 
     employees should not be targeted to achieve further 
     reductions in the deficit as they have already contributed 
     more than their fair share, that Federal workers should be 
     compensated with pay and benefits at a level that enables the 
     Government to attract high quality people--which is 
     especially important during this period when more workers 
     will be retiring--and that no proposal to reduce the size of 
     the workforce should be considered without an assessment of 
     its impact on Government services.

     SEC. 508. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO 
                   ERADICATE POVERTY AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Access to opportunity should be the right of every 
     American.
       (2) Poverty has declined by more than one-third since 1967. 
     Federal programs and tax policies that strengthen economic 
     security and increase opportunity have played an important 
     role in this decline. Continued Federal support is essential 
     to build on these gains.
       (3) Social Security has played a major role in reducing 
     poverty. Without it, the poverty rate in 2013 would have been 
     8.6 percentage points higher. Its positive impact on older 
     Americans is even starker, lowering the poverty rate among 
     this group by nearly 40 percentage points.
       (4) The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program alone 
     lifts nearly 5 million people out of poverty, including over 
     2 million children. School breakfast and lunch programs help 
     keep children ready to learn, allowing them to reach their 
     full potential.
       (5) Medicaid improves health, access to health care, and 
     financial security. Medicaid coverage lowers infant, child, 
     and adult mortality rates. Medicaid coverage virtually 
     eliminates catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures, 
     providing much needed financial security and peace of mind.
       (6) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax 
     Credit (CTC) together lift over 9 million people, including 5 
     million children, out of poverty. President Ronald Reagan 
     proposed the major EITC expansion in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, 
     which he referred to as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-
     family, the best job creation measure to come out of 
     Congress''. Studies indicate that children in families that 
     receive the type of income supports EITC and CTC offer do 
     better at school and have higher incomes as adults.
       (7) Antipoverty programs have increasingly been focused on 
     encouraging and rewarding work for those who are able. The 
     programs can empower their beneficiaries to rise to the 
     middle class through job training, educational assistance, 
     adequate nutrition, housing and health care.
       (8) Despite our progress, there is still work to be done. 
     Nearly 50 million Americans still live below the poverty 
     line. Parental income still has a major impact on children's 
     income after they become adults.
       (9) There remain significant disparities across racial and 
     ethnic lines. At the end of 2013, the unemployment rate for 
     whites was 6.0 percent but was 8.4 percent for Hispanics and 
     11.8 percent for African Americans. The poverty rate among 
     African Americans and Hispanics is nearly double that for 
     whites. Disparities in wealth are even starker, with white 
     households having nearly 13 times the median wealth of 
     African American households and 11 times the median wealth of 
     Hispanic households.
       (10) The minimum wage has not changed since 2007 and is 
     worth less today than it was in real terms at the beginning 
     of 1950. Raising the minimum could lift millions out of 
     poverty.
       (11) Some areas of the country have been left behind. They 
     face persistent high levels of poverty and joblessness. 
     Residents of these areas often lack access to quality 
     schools, affordable health care, and adequate job 
     opportunities.
       (b) Policy.--It is the sense of the House to support a 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. The strategy must include a multi-pronged approach 
     that would:
       (1) Ensure a livable wage for workers, including raising 
     the minimum wage so that a full time worker earns enough to 
     be above the poverty line.
       (2) Provide education and job training to make sure workers 
     have the skills to succeed.
       (3) Provide supports for struggling families in difficult 
     economic times and while developing skills.
       (4) Remove barriers and obstacles that prevent individuals 
     from taking advantage of economic and educational 
     opportunities.
       (5) Provide supports for the most vulnerable who are not 
     able to work: seniors, the severely disabled, and children.

     As the strategy is developed and implemented, Congress must 
     work to protect low-income and middle-class Americans from 
     the negative impacts of budget cuts on the critical domestic 
     programs that help millions of struggling American families. 
     The strategy should maximize the impact of antipoverty 
     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 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 
     historical poverty, unemployment, and general distress. For 
     example, the idea of targeting ten percent of certain Federal 
     funding to areas where twenty percent or more of the 
     population has been living below the poverty line for at 
     least thirty years should be explored.

     SEC. 509. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON REJECTING THE SEQUESTER.

       (b) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Reductions to discretionary programs necessitated by 
     the Budget Control Act of 2011 caps will harm national 
     security and important domestic investments.
       (2) The caps took effect when Congress could not reach 
     agreement on the deficit reduction goal established in that 
     Act. They were never intended to be implemented. Rather they 
     were designed to be a sword of Damocles, so austere and 
     infeasible that they would motivate compromise on spending 
     reductions and revenue increases.
       (3) An important feature of the Act was its equal treatment 
     for the defense and non-defense portions of the budget, which 
     was to serve as an incentive to reach agreement for Members 
     with varying priorities.
       (4) The Act provided special procedures for certain program 
     integrity efforts to encourage full funding. These efforts 
     pay for themselves by making sure benefits go only to those 
     who are eligible and taxes are paid as required by law. These 
     procedures should be expanded where there is well documented 
     evidence of effective efforts.
       (4) Providing relief from unrealistically low spending caps 
     by circumventing existing law is neither responsible nor 
     transparent. Emergency and overseas contingency operations 
     adjustments, which are not controlled by the caps, should not 
     be used to fund base spending.
       (5) The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 took an important 
     first step in correcting the overly restrictive caps, 
     providing relief in 2014 and 2015 in a fiscally responsible 
     way. This budget continues that effort.
       (a) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that--
       (1) the Budget Control Act should be amended to increase 
     its overly austere spending limits to the levels included in 
     this resolution;
       (2) increases in both defense and non-defense will make 
     room for a range of domestic and security investments that 
     will accelerate growth and expand opportunity; and
       (3) additional special procedures should be established to 
     improve tax code enforcement and to reduce improper payments 
     in the unemployment insurance program as permitted in this 
     resolution.

     SEC. 510. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 59 million Americans currently receive earned 
     Social Security benefits and, for most, Social Security's 
     modest benefits provide the majority of their income.
       (2) Social Security benefits are becoming more critical to 
     providing retirement income as fewer and fewer workers have 
     access to traditional defined benefit retirement plans and 
     many workers are unable to save adequate resources in 
     retirement savings accounts.
       (3) More than half of disabled workers receiving Social 
     Security insurance payments would have fallen into poverty if 
     they had not earned Social Security to protect them when they 
     became severely disabled or terminally ill.
       (4) The Social Security trust funds have a combined balance 
     of $2.8 trillion, built by contributions from American 
     workers, enough to pay 100 percent of earned benefits until 
     2033.
       (5) Social Security's Disability Insurance (DI) and Old Age 
     and Survivors Insurance (OASI) systems are intertwined both 
     in their benefit structure and in their revenues--DI 
     recipients who reach retirement age receive OASI benefits and 
     beneficiaries in each category have helped finance the other 
     category even if they will never receive those benefits.

[[Page H1973]]

       (6) In the short-term, the projected shortfall in the DI 
     trust fund should be addressed through changes that permit 
     Social Security to use its existing overall resources to fund 
     DI benefits.
       (a) Policy.--This resolution assumes action by the House of 
     Representatives to enact legislation that uses Social 
     Security's existing reserves to prevent cuts in Social 
     Security's earned benefits, and makes no changes to Social 
     Security that involve reductions in earned Social Security 
     benefits.

     SEC. 511. 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 2015, 55,300,000 people will rely 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 costs 
     than private insurance, and Medicare program costs per 
     enrollee have grown at a slower rate than private insurance 
     for a given level of benefits;
       (4) people with Medicare already have the ability to choose 
     a private insurance plan within Medicare through the Medicare 
     Advantage option, yet more than 70 percent of Medicare 
     beneficiaries chose the traditional fee-for-service program 
     instead of a private plan in 2014;
       (5) rising health care costs are not unique to Medicare or 
     other Federal health programs, they are endemic to the entire 
     health care system;
       (6) converting Medicare into a voucher for the purchase of 
     health insurance will merely force seniors and individuals 
     with disabilities to pay much higher premiums if they want to 
     use their voucher to purchase traditional Medicare coverage;
       (7) a voucher system in which the voucher payment fails to 
     keep pace with growth in health costs would expose seniors 
     and persons with disabilities on fixed incomes to 
     unacceptable financial risks;
       (8) 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
       (9) versions of voucher policies that do not immediately 
     end the traditional Medicare program will merely set it up 
     for a death spiral as private plans siphon off healthier and 
     less expensive beneficiaries, leaving the sickest 
     beneficiaries in a program that will 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 to end the Medicare guarantee, financially 
     penalize people for choosing traditional Medicare, or shift 
     rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare 
     with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of health 
     insurance, should be rejected.

     SEC. 512. 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) 16,400,000 uninsured individuals have gained health 
     coverage so far as a result of the Affordable Care Act, and 
     the uninsured rate for working-age adults has dropped from 
     20.3 percent to 13.2 percent since October 2013, when the ACA 
     marketplaces opened for business;
       (3) the Affordable Care Act will expand affordable coverage 
     for up to 25,000,000 people by the end of the decade who 
     would otherwise be uninsured;
       (4) the Affordable Care Act ensures the right to equal 
     treatment for people who have preexisting health conditions 
     and for women;
       (5) the Affordable Care Act ensures that health insurance 
     coverage will always include basic necessary services such as 
     prescription drugs, mental health care, and maternity care 
     and that insurance companies cannot impose lifetime or annual 
     limits on these benefits;
       (6) the Affordable Care Act increases transparency in 
     health care, helping to reduce health care cost growth by 
     requiring transparency around hospital charges, insurer cost-
     sharing, and kick-back payments from pharmaceutical companies 
     to physicians;
       (7) 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 since 2011, national health 
     expenditures have grown at the slowest rate on record;
       (8) health care spending per capita in the United States 
     grew in 2011, 2012, and 2013 at the lowest rates on record, 
     and the Congressional Budget Office now projects that the 
     Affordable Care Act's coverage provisions will cost a full 33 
     percent less in 2019 than the agency originally estimated 
     when the Act became law in 2010; and
       (7) 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. 513. 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, and will provide health coverage to 
     69,000,000 Americans in 2015, including 1 in 3 children;
       (2) Medicaid improves health outcomes, access to health 
     services, and financial security;
       (3) seniors, people with disabilities, and children account 
     for about three-fourths of Medicaid program spending and 
     would be at risk of losing access to health care under any 
     policy to sever the link between Medicaid funding and the 
     actual costs of providing services to the currently eligible 
     Medicaid population;
       (4) Medicaid is the primary payer for long-term care in the 
     United States, providing financial assistance to seniors and 
     people with disabilities facing significant out-of-pocket 
     costs for in-home and nursing home services; and
       (5) an estimated 7 in 10 Americans aged 65 or older will 
     need long-term services and supports 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 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 
     demographics or health care costs or from economic 
     conditions.

     SEC. 514. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON INVESTMENTS THAT HELP 
                   CHILDREN SUCCEED.

       (b) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Investments in early childhood benefit the economy as a 
     whole, generating at least $7 in return for every $1 invested 
     by lowering the need for spending on other services--such as 
     remedial education, grade repetition, and special education--
     and increasing productivity and earnings for those children 
     as adults.
       (2) High-quality, affordable child care helps two 
     generations to succeed, increasing employment and earnings 
     for parents while promoting a healthy growing and learning 
     environment for children.
       (3) Unfortunately, only one out of every six eligible 
     children is able to access care through the child care and 
     development block grant, and only three out of every ten 4-
     year-olds are enrolled in high-quality early childhood 
     education programs in the United States.
       (4) In particular, children from low-income families are 
     less likely to have access to high-quality, affordable 
     preschool programs that will prepare them for kindergarten. 
     By third grade, children from low-income families who are not 
     reading at grade level are six times less likely to graduate 
     from high school than students who are proficient.
       (5) Voluntary home visits to families with young children 
     in at-risk communities have been shown to improve maternal 
     and child health, promote child development and school 
     readiness, and help prevent child abuse and neglect. Home 
     visiting programs have created savings, reducing Medicaid 
     costs by lowering the number of preterm births and use of 
     hospital emergency rooms, reducing the need for public 
     benefits and child protective services, and increasing tax 
     revenues through higher parental earnings.
       (6) The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is an 
     important source of health care coverage for more than 8 
     million children in families who earn too much to qualify for 
     Medicaid but who struggle to meet everyday expenses. Due in 
     large part to CHIP, the rate of uninsured children in the 
     U.S. fell from 13.9 percent to 7.1 percent between 1997 and 
     2012.
       (a) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that this 
     resolution supports funding for, and assumes enactment of, 
     the following:
       (1) A 10-year child care initiative that would ensure that 
     all low- and moderate-income working families with children 
     aged three and below would have access to affordable, quality 
     child care.
       (2) A 10-year investment to provide access to high-quality 
     early education for all 4-year-olds. Early education programs 
     must meet quality benchmarks that are linked to better 
     outcomes for children, including a rigorous curriculum tied 
     to State-level standards, qualified teachers, small class 
     sizes, and effective evaluation and review of programs.
       (3) Extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program 
     (CHIP) and extension and expansion of the existing highly 
     effective voluntary home-visiting program for at-risk 
     children.

     SEC. 515. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON IMMIGRATION REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Fixing the country's broken immigration system will 
     mean a stronger economy and lower budget deficits.
       (2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 
     enacting the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and 
     Immigration Modernization Act, as introduced by House 
     Democrats in the 113th Congress, will reduce

[[Page H1974]]

     the deficit by $900 billion over the next two decades, boost 
     the economy by 5.4 percent, and increase productivity by 1.0 
     percent.
       (3) The Social Security Actuary estimates that immigration 
     reform will reduce the Social Security shortfall by 8 percent 
     and will extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund by 
     two years.
       (4) The passage of the Border Security, Economic 
     Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act recognizes 
     that the primary tenets of its success depend on securing the 
     sovereignty of the United States of America and establishing 
     a coherent and just system for integrating those who seek to 
     join American society.
       (5) We have a right, and duty, to maintain and secure our 
     borders, and to keep our country safe and prosperous. As a 
     Nation founded, built and sustained by immigrants we also 
     have a responsibility to harness the power of that tradition 
     in a balanced way that secures a more prosperous future for 
     America.
       (6) We have always welcomed newcomers to the United States 
     and will continue to do so. But in order to qualify for the 
     honor and privilege of eventual citizenship, our laws must be 
     followed. The world depends on America to be strong--
     economically, militarily and ethically. The establishment of 
     a stable, just, and efficient immigration system only 
     supports those goals. As a Nation, we have the right and 
     responsibility to make our borders safe, to establish clear 
     and just rules for seeking citizenship, to control the flow 
     of legal immigration, and to eliminate illegal immigration, 
     which in some cases has become a threat to our national 
     security.
       (7) All parts of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, 
     and Immigration Modernization Act are premised on the right 
     and need of the United States to achieve these goals, and to 
     protect its borders and maintain its sovereignty.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the full 
     House vote on comprehensive immigration reform--such as the 
     Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration 
     Modernization Act--to boost our economy, lower deficits, 
     establish clear and just rules for citizenship, and secure 
     our borders.

     SEC. 516. 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) in testimony before the House Armed Service Committee 
     on March 18, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated 
     that the Defense Department needs funding it requests for 
     regular, ``base budget'' activities appropriated in the base 
     budget because it provides stability in planning for the 
     future;
       (4) in testimony before the House Armed Service Committee 
     on March 18, 2015, Under Secretary of Defense Michael McCord 
     said the Pentagon does not need $36 billion or $38 billion 
     extra in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget;
       (5) OCO designation has been used as a backdoor loophole to 
     fund regular base budget activities. This gimmick avoids 
     confronting the problem of sequestration and does not address 
     the country's priorities in a comprehensive and transparent 
     manner. In addition to undermining the integrity of the 
     budget process, it perpetuates funding uncertainty for all 
     Government agencies, including the Department of Defense;
       (6) 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;
       (7) the Nation's projected long-term debt could have 
     serious consequences for our economy and security, and that 
     more efficient military spending has to be part of an overall 
     plan that effectively deals with this problem;
       (8) reining 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 needs to continue as 
     a priority;
       (9) according to GAO, 42 percent of the Department of 
     Defense's major weapons system acquisition programs had unit 
     cost growth of 25 percent or more and 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;
       (10) 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;
       (11) weapons technologies should be proven to work through 
     adequate testing before advancing them to the production 
     phase of the acquisition process;
       (12) the Pentagon's operation and maintenance budget 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;
       (13) nearly all of the increase in the Federal civilian 
     workforce from 2001 to 2014 is due to increases at security-
     related agencies--Department of Defense, Department of 
     Homeland Security, Department of Veterans Affairs, and 
     Department of Justice--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;
       (14) 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
       (15) 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 the House that--
       (1) the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 
     2011 for fiscal years 2016 through 2021 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; and
       (2) efficiencies can be achieved in 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 national security needs.

     SEC. 517. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The United States Government Accountability Office 
     described climate change as, ``a complex, crosscutting issue 
     that poses risks to many environmental and economic systems--
     including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human 
     health--and presents a significant financial risk to the 
     Federal Government''.
       (2) The Department of Defense's Climate Change Adaptation 
     Roadmap warns, ``Climate change will affect the Department of 
     Defense's ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate 
     risks to U.S. national security''.
       (3) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
     National Climatic Data Center reported 14 of the 15 warmest 
     years on record occurred in the first 15 years of this 
     century. Furthermore, 2014 was the warmest year on record 
     across global land and ocean surfaces.
       (4) The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
     Change concluded the effects of climate change are occurring 
     worldwide, ``The impacts of climate change have already been 
     felt in recent decades on all continents and across the 
     oceans''.
       (5) The United States National Research Council's National 
     Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee found 
     climate change affects, ``human health, water supply, 
     agriculture, transportation, energy, coastal areas, and many 
     other sectors of society, with increasingly adverse impacts 
     on the American economy and quality of life''.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that climate 
     change presents a significant financial risk to the Federal 
     Government. Climate change science provides critical 
     information for protecting human health, defending the United 
     States, and preserving economic and environmental systems 
     throughout the world.

     SEC. 518. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON FINANCIAL CONSUMER 
                   PROTECTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the Bureau) 
     created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act of 2010 is an important component of the 
     country's response to the financial crisis and recession;
       (2) the Bureau is playing a critical role in protecting 
     student loan borrowers, older Americans, service members, and 
     other consumers, especially in minority and low-income 
     communities. It has implemented new rules for mortgage 
     markets and prepaid cards, and also successfully recovered 
     $5.3 billion on behalf of more than 15 million consumers and 
     service members;
       (3) the Bureau's funding from the Federal Reserve's 
     operations help give it important independence from efforts 
     to interfere with its vital mission and activities, 
     independence on par with every other banking regulator; and
       (4) the Bureau has already faced and overcome efforts to 
     obstruct its operations.

[[Page H1975]]

       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House Congress will 
     continue to support the vital work of the Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau and retain its current financing structure 
     to fund its resource needs.

     SEC. 519. 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, Barbershop, 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. 520. 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) The Comptroller General has stated that addressing the 
     identified waste, duplication, and overlap in Federal 
     programs ``could lead to tens of billions of dollars of 
     additional savings, with significant opportunities for 
     improved efficiencies, cost savings, or revenue 
     enhancements''.
       (3) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion each 
     year for information technology. GAO has identified 
     opportunities for savings and improved efficiencies in the 
     Government's information technology infrastructure.
       (4) Federal agencies reported an estimated $125 billion in 
     improper payments in fiscal year 2014.
       (5) 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.
       (6) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal 
     year 2016, 35 laws will expire. Timely reauthorizations of 
     these laws would ensure assessments of program justification 
     and effectiveness.
       (7) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs may result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy.--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 changed.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 163, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am putting forward the Democratic alternative budget on behalf of 
my colleagues. It is based on a very different view of how our economy 
in this country has grown historically and how it should grow in the 
future.
  As we have heard from our Republican colleagues, their theory of the 
economy is top down, trickle down. They want to cut the top tax rates 
for folks at the very top, the millionaires, on the hope that the 
benefits will trickle down and lift everybody up. We tried that under 
President Bush. It lifted up folks who were already at the top of the 
ladder. Everybody else was running in place or falling behind.
  We believe that you accelerate economic growth through more 
opportunity and more shared prosperity, not from the top down, but by 
making sure that hard-working Americans can earn a little bit more and 
go out and spend it at the shopping center and in any way they want to 
support their families and have a good standard of living.
  So while the Republican budget helps folks at the very top with 
additional tax rate cuts and squeezes working families, our budget 
provides more relief to those working families. How? We adopt, for 
example, the President's proposed expanded child and dependent care tax 
credit. So if you are a working family and you want to make sure your 
child has a safe and secure environment with quality care, like every 
family would who is working, we provide a much bigger tax credit so 
that you can ensure that quality and safer environment for your child. 
Or if you have a loved one at home, an elderly loved one at home, but 
you are working, we want to make sure that you have a tax credit so 
that the costs you pay for that care don't come out of your paycheck at 
the end.
  The Democratic budget is in stark contrast to the Republican budget, 
which actually increases the costs on working families. They get rid of 
the college tax deduction; they get rid of the step-up on the child tax 
credit; they get rid of the step-up on the Making Work Pay earned 
income tax credit; and of course they wipe out the Affordable Care tax 
credits that help millions of Americans have affordable health care. So 
their budget is squeezing folks in the middle and working toward the 
middle.
  They raise the interest rates on college students. We provide 
additional resources to help make college more affordable, and we adopt 
the President's plan for income-based student loan repayments.
  They will immediately increase the cost for prescription drugs for 
seniors on Medicare and increase the copays for preventive care, for 
people who have worked hard for a secure environment. We don't do that 
in our budget.
  So this is a budget that supports working families in America and 
invests in our future, not one that squeezes those families harder and 
disinvests in America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Before I begin, I want to join with my colleague on the Committee on 
the Budget, the ranking member, in providing a letter for the Record 
commending Doug Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, 
whose time at the CBO is coming to a close. His final day is March 31. 
He has served this Nation for the last 6 years as the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, and the ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen, 
and I will be inserting a letter into the Record to commend him for his 
service.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland to say a few words about 
Director Elmendorf.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me and us 
working together to salute Dr. Elmendorf, who, by all accounts, has 
done a terrific job at the Congressional Budget Office. He has led that 
office with great professionalism, and I think he has continued to 
uphold the integrity of CBO. I think we have all benefited from his 
wisdom over the years.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2015.

  Statement by Chairman Tom Price, M.D. and Ranking Member Chris Van 
                 Hollen of the Committee on the Budget


Recognizing Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget 
                                 Office

       Douglas W. Elmendorf is the eighth Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office who was initially appointed on 
     January 22, 2009, to complete the previous four-year term of 
     office; he was later reappointed to serve through January 3, 
     2015. Dr. Elmendorf graciously agreed to remain at CBO beyond 
     the end of his term to ensure CBO's smooth and steady 
     operations while the process of appointing his successor was 
     completed. His tenure as CBO Director is the second longest 
     of all CBO's directors, behind only CBO's first director, 
     Alice Rivlin.
       Before he came to CBO, Dr. Elmendorf was a senior fellow 
     and the Edward M. Bernstein Scholar in the Economic Studies 
     program at the Brookings Institution. He was previously an 
     assistant professor at Harvard University, a principal 
     analyst at CBO, a senior economist at the White House's 
     Council of Economic Advisers, a deputy assistant secretary 
     for economic policy at the Treasury Department, and an 
     assistant director of the Division of Research and Statistics 
     at the Federal Reserve Board. In those positions, he worked 
     on budget policy, Social Security, Medicare, health care 
     issues, financial markets, macroeconomic analysis and 
     forecasting, and other topics. He earned his Ph.D. and A.M. 
     in economics from Harvard University, where he was a National 
     Science Foundation graduate fellow, and his A.B. summa cum 
     laude from Princeton University.
       While Dr. Elmendorf's credentials clearly qualified him to 
     be the CBO Director, he

[[Page H1976]]

     would probably be the first to say that nothing can really 
     prepare you for the job. We in Congress place heavy and 
     sometimes unreasonable demands on CBO to produce nonpartisan, 
     high-quality analyses in a timely fashion. Under his 
     leadership, CBO has consistently responded to these demands 
     and helped us to understand the budgetary and economic 
     implications of our actions. The legislative issues have been 
     contentious and complex. But throughout his tenure, CBO has 
     remained true to its nonpartisan tradition and has provided 
     the high-quality, cutting-edge analysis that we need under 
     extremely challenging circumstances.
       Under his leadership, CBO has been a consistent and 
     dependable source of objective information and analysis on a 
     range of critically important issues. For example, as 
     Congress grappled with the aftermath of the fiscal crisis and 
     recession, he enhanced CBO's capacity to perform cutting-edge 
     analysis of the economic effects of various policy responses, 
     and he has continued to strengthen CBO's capabilities in that 
     area and in many others. Along with high-quality analysis, he 
     was worked hard to be sure that CBO provided clear 
     explanations of both the basis and results of those 
     analyses--through the clarity of its reports and, on many 
     occasions, through his clear and cogent testimony before 
     Congressional committees. And he has made himself personally 
     available--at all times of day and night--to Members on both 
     sides of the aisle to receive our urgent requests for 
     estimates, to answer our questions, or to hear our 
     complaints.
       Dr. Elmendorf has never shied away from delivering tough 
     and sometimes blunt messages to lawmakers about the fiscal 
     challenges that the nation is facing. He has never stepped 
     over the line to tell us what we should do, but he has made 
     very clear that the status quo is not an option over the long 
     term. In the end, his professionalism and conviction are the 
     hallmarks of a strong CBO director.
       As CBO transitions to new leadership, we thank Doug for his 
     time as director and for the dedication, energy, and 
     commitment he has brought to the position. CBO, the Congress, 
     and the people of this nation have been served well by the 
     outstanding leadership of Douglas W. Elmendorf.
     Tom Price, M.D.,
       Chairman, House Budget Committee.
     Chris Van Hollen,
       Ranking Democrat, House Budget Committee.

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I do want to commend my 
Democratic colleagues for coming forward with a budget. It is important 
to have contrasting visions that are able to be debated here on the 
floor of the House.
  I am not surprised, but I am oftentimes amused by the misinformation 
and the distortion that comes from our colleagues on the other side. 
Mr. Chairman, we have had now three separate budgets that have been 
offered by our friends on the other side: first, the Progressive Caucus 
budget, then the CBC budget, now the Democratic Caucus budget.
  I want to have our colleagues focus on the comparison, side by side, 
of this budget that is being offered to that of the Republican budget, 
A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America. These numbers on the far 
column there of the Democratic budget identify specific areas in their 
budget and how they compare to the Republican budget.
  In taxes, how do they compare in taxes? You hear our friends talking 
about taxes all the time. $1.9 trillion in new taxes--$1.9 trillion. 
Spending, what do they do on spending? $6.3 trillion in spending over 
the Republican budget, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America. What 
about deficits? $4.6 trillion in increased deficits. Debt? $4.7 
trillion in increased debt over a 10-year period of time. What do they 
do to defense in these perilous times in our Nation and in our world? 
Decrease spending on defense compared to the Republican budget by $314 
billion.
  You would think with all of those taxes and all of that spending that 
you would get to balance, you would get to a point where the revenue 
that is coming into the Federal Government would equal the spending 
that is going out, but their budget never, ever, ever, ever balances. I 
guess they take their lead from the President.
  So let's take a little closer look at a couple of these issues.
  Tax increases. Taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes; that is what we hear from 
the folks on the other side. After raising over a trillion dollars in 
taxes for ObamaCare and forcing through over $600 billion in new taxes 
during the fiscal cliff discussion and debate, now they are calling for 
another massive tax increase of $1.9 trillion. Even with these huge tax 
increases already enacted into law, the Democrat budget never 
balances--ever, ever, ever--because it refuses to reduce spending, and 
it refuses to address the biggest drivers of our debt.
  Their substitute calls for more taxes on families, more taxes on 
small businesses. Even though, Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget 
Office tells us that the Federal revenue collection will exceed, will 
be greater than the 40-year average level--about 17.4 percent of gross 
domestic product, every year greater than that number, every year for 
the next decade--that is not enough for our friends on the other side. 
In other words, Washington is on track to collect more taxes from the 
American people than it ever has in the past, but Democrats want 
Washington to take even more.

                              {time}  1530

  As has been said so many times, Washington doesn't have a revenue 
problem; we have got a spending problem--and there is no doubt about it 
that the American people understand that.
  The Democratic budget rhetoric claims to raise an additional $1.9 
trillion by ``rejecting tax breaks for the wealthy and closing special 
interest loopholes.''
  Look out, ladies and gentlemen. What that clever rhetoric really 
means is that they are going to hit small businesses with even more 
taxes. Why? Why is that? Because the majority of small businesses, non-
C corp businesses, the majority of those businesses that create jobs 
around this country pay taxes under the individual income system. That 
is how they do it. That is who those folks want to punish--the job 
creators.
  These tax hike ideas end up impacting successful small businesses all 
across this country. As I mentioned, they represent the job creation 
engine of our economy, over 60 percent of the jobs being created--two-
thirds of the jobs being created--for all private sector jobs generated 
by small businesses.
  So, despite the facts that we present, the Democrat budget would 
continue the failed policy of Washington picking winners and losers, 
rewarding their friends, punishing their political enemies, distorting 
the free market, further distorting an already overly complex Tax Code, 
all of which would have disastrous results of subsidizing private 
investors' profits and socializing what should be private investors' 
losses. So, more taxes.
  What about spending cuts? Any spending cuts?
  Despite their call for a balanced approach, the Democrat budget 
never, ever balances. In fact, it doesn't even come close to passing 
the Democrats' prior test of balance, which they defined as having 
equal parts tax increases and spending reductions.
  Interestingly, the Democrats continue to be moving away from their 
previously described balanced approach. Under this approach, their 
latest budget, a balanced approach appears to be requiring both tax 
increases and spending increases. In fact, the Democratic substitute 
would increase spending by $855 billion more than just staying on our 
current path.
  In other words, their substitute contains zero spending reductions 
and contains $1.9 trillion in tax increases and $855 billion in 
spending increases.
  It is not the direction the American people desire, clearly; not the 
direction that gets on a path to balance; not the direction that get us 
on a positive solution to addressing the challenges that we face.
  A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America is the direction in which we 
need to go, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let's just dispel with a myth from the start, which is that the 
Republican budget balances.
  As we have heard, only if you believe in budget quackery does it do 
this. Even a newspaper like USA Today, which has no partisan bent to 
it, blew the whistle on all the accounting gimmicks in the Republican 
budget.
  Now, let me just say a word about revenues and taxes. The Democratic 
budget doesn't call for any increase in any tax rate on anybody, unlike 
the Republican budget that refuses to close one special interest tax 
break to reduce

[[Page H1977]]

the deficit, which they say is the primary objective. Rather than close 
one special interest tax break to reduce the deficit, they don't touch 
a single one--not for corporate jets, not for hedge fund managers.
  I want everybody to look at this chart. This is from the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office. What they say is that each year there are 
outlays. We spend $1.4 trillion on tax breaks in the United States--
more than on Social Security in any year, more than on Medicaid and 
Medicare combined.
  Well, if I give you, Mr. Speaker, a thousand dollars from the 
government, I can also deliver that same benefit by telling you that of 
the taxes you owe me, pay me a thousand dollars less. Maybe you have 
got a great powerful lobbyist who is getting you a special break, so 
that when the normal person has to pay regular tax rates, you get a 
special deduction.
  Now, some of the deductions are for good causes, but many are not. 
And where do most of those tax breaks go--or should I say a 
disproportionate amount of those tax benefits, often put there by 
powerful lobbyists? Again, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
says that 17 percent of the benefits of those tax breaks, special 
deductions, 17 percent go to the top 1 percent of income earners.
  So it is true. The Democratic budget does want to close some of those 
special interest tax breaks that go to folks at the very top rather 
than cut our kids' education, rather than slash our investment 
innovation.
  And lo and behold, we saw the most recent example of the Republican 
plan to provide more tax breaks to the folks at the very top end of the 
income scale just today in the Ways and Means Committee.
  Right now you don't have any estate tax obligation as a couple if 
your estate is lower than $10 million. If your estate is lower than $10 
million per couple, your estate is exempt. But we do have a tax rate on 
the amount over $10 million because I thought in this country we do not 
believe that people should get ahead just by the wealth they inherited 
from others, but through their hard work and labor.
  So we proposed to change the Tax Code in a way that rewards work 
rather than in a way that just rewards inherited wealth of $10 million, 
an estate that is going to help just 5,000 families.
  That is why the Democratic budget rewards hard-working families 
rather than other tax rates for folks at the top.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My friend from Maryland will be pleased to know that our vision for 
tax reform is positive, robust, and makes certain that all Americans 
benefit. That is what our budget does. It lifts up all Americans. We 
don't pick winners and losers. We are not interested in dividing the 
country.
  What our friends on the other side seem to have as their stock in 
trade is dividing, pitting one American against another. That is not 
America. Good gracious almighty.
  Let's talk about taxes. They want to increase taxes as far as the eye 
can see. They don't want to bring about any spending reductions, 
understanding that what is happening right now in terms of the debt in 
this country, what we have got is a level of debt that was only 
surpassed during World War II.
  This is a chart that demonstrates the debt of this country from 1940 
through 2040, projections from 2015 on. Our debt right now is at a 
level that was only surpassed at the end of World War II.
  And where does current law take it? Where does the budget that our 
friends on the other side of the aisle propose take the debt? Higher 
than ever before--ever in the history of the country.
  What does that red line mean? It means fewer jobs, fewer opportunity 
choices for individuals, fewer dreams realized, Mr. Chairman. This red 
line is the destruction of the American Dream. That is what it is.

  That is why our Balanced Budget for a Stronger America is the way to 
go. It gets our economy under control, gets the economy rolling again, 
gets the debt under control, gets us to balance, and puts us on a path 
to paying off the debt.
  What do they want to do with spending? It follows the same tried and 
failed plan of more spending, with the promise of deficit reduction and 
economic growth later, which never occurs. We have tried it before. We 
know the results.
  What did we achieve for all the spending that our friends on the 
other side of the aisle have brought about? The lowest labor force 
participation rates in decades. What does that mean? Fewer people 
working, Mr. Chairman. Poverty rates stuck at high levels. Twenty 
percent of the kids in this country are living in poverty right now. 
That is under the policies that these folks want to double down on.
  We have seen the Washington metropolitan area is the home of 6 of the 
10 richest counties in all of America. That is a Federal Government 
that has grown beyond all proportion. And we have seen, as I mentioned, 
levels of debt that haven't been seen since the end of World War II.
  So, if more government spending led to higher growth in job creation, 
we would be experiencing an economic boom the likes of which we have 
never seen. But the economic track record of recent years clearly has 
been abysmal.
  Real GDP growth over the past 4 years averaged just over 2 percent, 
where the average of the last 40 years is over 30 percent. Those are 
real jobs, Mr. Chairman, that have been lost by this administration and 
by our friends who want to double down. It is the slowest recovery that 
we have ever had coming out of an economic downturn.
  The labor force participation rate is at 62.8 percent, the lowest 
level in over 35 years. Roughly 8.7 million Americans are currently 
unemployed, and those who are working have seen meager, meager real 
wage growth.
  So more taxes, no spending reductions, more spending, more debt, more 
destruction of jobs, more destruction of dreams. Sadly, that is what 
our friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing.
  A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America is the way to go, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting listening to the 
chairman, since the nonpartisan CBO says the Republican budget will 
slow down economic growth in the next couple of years.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a 
terrific new member of the Budget Committee.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Democratic alternative budget we are discussing today, which addresses 
the many issues working families are dealing with, but there is one 
provision in particular that I want to highlight on long-term care.
  As the ranking member and too many Americans know, long-term care is 
a concern that nearly every American family is confronting or will 
confront in the coming years. We have made great strides to improve our 
health care system in the last few years, but what we have a strong 
need for is a comprehensive, long-term plan for how seniors can get the 
day-to-day help they need for the basic tasks of living, like meal 
preparation, eating, bathing, and getting dressed in the morning.
  Too many seniors today are relying on a complex, disconnected system 
full of barriers that doesn't work. It is a system designed for the 
20th century, while we are living in the 21st century. Addressing it 
will save money and can improve the quality of life for many.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. DINGELL. So, to address this problem, the Democratic budget 
contains revenue-neutral language that would allow the House to 
consider legislation today to begin to resolve the long-term care 
crisis in our country. It is an important priority, and it is important 
that it has been included in our alternative budget.
  My hope is that we can all work together on this soon in a bipartisan 
way. Not dealing with it is not going to make it go away, I thank the 
ranking member for working with us.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining on each side?

[[Page H1978]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has 
7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), another of our great new 
members of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. NORCROSS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from a Democratic statehouse where we had to 
find common ground with a Republican Governor in order to make a budget 
pass that made sense. Now I sit on the Budget Committee as a freshman 
here in Washington where we are asked to vote on a budget that makes no 
sense at all.
  We all agree that students are now saddled with too much debt, and 
certainly my colleagues across the aisle want to cut $220 billion from 
education funding, freeze Pell grants, and limit students' access to 
loan programs. That doesn't make sense.
  We all agree that we need to create jobs and get businesses to 
reinvest here in America, and the best way to do that is to invest 
here, in ourselves, in America. Yet their budget provides no new 
resources to upgrade our transportation and water systems, expand 
access to high speed Internet, or harden our electric grid, which is at 
risk. That doesn't make sense.
  Instead, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative 
that will provide the tools students and families will need to survive 
and succeed in our economy, create jobs by investing in research and 
infrastructure, properly fund a strong national defense, and make good 
on our promise to our seniors by strengthening Medicaid and Social 
Security.
  That makes sense. This is why I am asking for my colleagues to join 
with me and vote for the Democratic alternative.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the vice chairman 
of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman for this process.
  All day today, we have been considering substitute budgets, laid 
bare, in the people's House, in this Chamber, for everyone to view and 
critique; and I think that is a good thing.
  Considering the Democrat substitute amendment, their budget, it adds 
an additional $4.7 trillion to the debt versus our budget. As we stand 
here today, we already have $18 trillion worth of debt and another at 
least $100 trillion on the way over the next several decades, 
completely unsustainable.
  This comes despite, under their plan, a $1.9 trillion tax hike that 
we have already talked about. This shows, once again, that you can't 
solve our debt problems by chasing ever higher spending with ever 
higher taxes.
  The fact of the matter is, right now, we take in, as a Federal 
Government, over $2.5 trillion of the people's property. It is the 
people's property that we confiscate, some of it rightly so, to run the 
things that we need--but $2.5 trillion, Mr. Chairman, we have a 
spending problem, not a revenue problem when you consider that we--
excuse me. It is probably nearly $3 trillion now when we kick in nearly 
$3.5 trillion of spending also.
  When you analyze this, if you look at it, the CBO said--and this was 
in a letter to former Chairman Ryan--that tax rates would have to 
nearly double by 2030 if we are to stabilize our debt by using tax 
increases alone, as this Democratic substitute would do.
  Now, here is what CBO says about rates. By 2023, everyone's income 
tax would have to increase by 33 percent; by 2030, rates would have to 
increase by 48 percent, and by 2050, rates would have to increase by 86 
percent in order to account for the debt load that the Democratic 
budget wants to put not only on us, but our children and grandchildren.
  We stand here today as the first generation in American history that, 
by any objective measure, is going to leave the next one worse off.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an extra 1 minute.
  Mr. ROKITA. We cannot let that happen. This is what we came to 
Congress to solve, at least for many of us, hopefully, Republicans and 
Democrats, so that we are not the first generation in American history 
to leave the next one worse off.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As we have heard throughout the debate, there is a fundamental 
difference in how the United States grows our economy. I think if you 
look, historically, the reason we have grown the economy over time is 
because, for a long period, especially in the postwar period, as 
Americans worked harder, they were able to translate that harder work 
into higher incomes.
  We are supporting a tax system that rewards hard work. Our colleagues 
continue to stand by a tax system that actually gives better treatment 
to what is called unearned income, compared to earned income. In other 
words, if you earn income simply through making money off of money, you 
actually get a lower rate than money earned from hard work, like most 
Americans do every day.
  When you look at the fact that 17 percent of the tax breaks in the 
country go to people in the top 1 percent, it is the Tax Code itself 
that is currently rigged in favor of powerful special interests.
  Why should it be rigged against working people and in favor of people 
who can afford to hire powerful lobbyists to get tax breaks for 
themselves that benefit nobody else? That doesn't make any sense.
  Today, just today, in the Ways and Means Committee, as I said, the 
committee that deals with taxes, our Republican colleagues are saying 
that they want to get rid entirely of the estate tax. Right now, if you 
are a couple, $10 million of your estate is exempt. You don't pay a 
penny; but, yes, we do ask people who have accumulated lots of wealth 
to contribute a little bit to the country that helped them develop such 
a great lifestyle.
  I thought we were a country where we wanted to reward people who 
pulled themselves up by their bootstraps through hard work; yet we have 
a Republican budget that says we are going to provide 5,500 families 
with this huge tax break today.
  At the same time, we are cutting our investment in education, an 
investment that we know helps millions and millions of American 
families earn a better living over time; but, no, let's cut that. Let's 
increase the cost of student loans. Let's give 5,500 families a huge 
tax break.
  Teddy Roosevelt would be turning in his grave at this Republican 
budget. He would support the Democratic budget that lifts up everybody, 
makes sure everybody gets a fair shake.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just, again, underscore a couple of key points here. We saw, 
during the early years of the 2000s, what an economy based on the 
trickle-down theory looks like, right?
  Under President Bush, the theory was, okay, we are just going to cut 
tax rates for millionaires, thinking that the benefits were going to 
lift up everybody in the economy. What happened in the real world to 
that economic theory? It crashed and burned.
  The reality was that people at the top did very well. God bless them; 
they did great, but everybody else, they were running in place. 
Paychecks flatlined, wages stagnant, and this has been a chronic 
problem for some period of time; then we went off the cliff.
  When President Obama was sworn in, we were losing 800,000 jobs every 
month. Now, we are coming out of that. Millions of people have gone 
back to work. We have got a long way to go, but we are coming out.
  The Republican budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget

[[Page H1979]]

Office, will slow down economic growth in the next couple of years. Why 
would we want to do that?
  Again, their theory is let's accelerate economic growth by trying, 
again, what failed before. Look, the definition of insanity is trying 
the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
  They want to cut top tax rates for folks at the top again. They want 
to eliminate the estate tax that will benefit 5,500 households, run up 
$269 billion on the deficit. That is what they want to do.
  The Democratic budget does something very different. We want to 
empower hard-working American families. We want to change the 
incentives in the Tax Code to incentivize higher pay.

  For example, we say that corporations should not be able to deduct 
CEO and executive bonuses over $1 million unless they are giving their 
workers a pay increase, right? Pay your CEOs whatever you want, but you 
don't get a taxpayer subsidy for those deductions if you are laying off 
workers or you are cutting their wages.
  Corporations deducted about $70 billion in CEO bonuses over a 3-year 
period, from 2007 to 2010. We say: Why should the taxpayers be doing 
that for corporations that are cutting pay for their employees?
  Our Republican colleagues continue to embrace a tax code that is 
rigged in favor of folks who have powerful lobbyists here to get 
special interest deductions. That is why the top 1 percent get 17 
percent of the value of all those tax breaks.
  Let's have a tax system that incentivizes higher pay. Let's invest in 
our kids' future, not slash our investment in education and innovation. 
Let's invest in the future of America. That is what the Democratic 
budget does.
  I urge adoption of the Democratic alternative.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I think it is important to recognize that the Congressional Budget 
Office actually says that our budget grows GDP at the end of the 10-
year window that we talk about. In order to turn this battleship in a 
direction, it takes a little while, but we are prepared to do that. We 
are offering positive solutions.
  I want to revisit, though, the debt. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked just a few years ago what the 
greatest security threat to the United States was. The highest ranking 
military officer in the land was asked what the greatest threat to the 
United States was, and he said the debt.
  This red line right here, this is what he was talking about, 
increasing debt beyond as far as the eye can see, more than we have 
ever had; and that is what the Democrat budget does.
  This is the current path that we are on right now, unless it has 
changed: fewer jobs, fewer dreams realized, fewer opportunities, fewer 
choices for the American people.
  What does a debt crisis look like? We haven't seen one here. What 
does it look like? Higher interest rates on everything from mortgages 
to credit cards to car loans, lower business investments and 
opportunities, lower wages for people struggling just to hold on to 
their jobs, fewer resources for critical government services, a 
crowding out of all the things that folks on both sides of the aisle 
say they want to use--in short, less opportunity, less hope, fewer 
dreams realized, a very sad future for America.
  That is not us. That is not America. That is not the people that we 
are. What we are is a balanced budget, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger 
America, positive solutions.
  Our budget proposes that we balance in less than 10 years, reduce 
spending by $5.5 trillion over that period of time, strong support for 
our national defense, higher spending for national defense than the 
President or the Democrats proposed in these very dangerous times, 
repealing all of ObamaCare in its entirety--not just because it is 
harmful to the economy, it is harmful to the health of this Nation.
  As a formerly practicing physician, I can attest to that. All you 
have to do is listen to my former professional colleagues.
  We secure economic opportunity, fair and simple tax reform, ending 
the too-big-to-fail bank bailouts. We cut corporate welfare. We embrace 
federalism, including increasing opportunity and choices for folks, 
whether it is in the healthcare arena, whether it is in nutritional 
assistance, whether it is in education, getting those decisions back in 
the States and local communities where they belong.
  To hold Washington accountable, we cut waste and fraud and abuse, 
make certain that we support the rights of conscience for healthcare 
providers and physicians across this land. We push back on the 
incredible overreach of this administration.
  We stop the President's war on coal. We prevent his carbon tax 
increase. We hold the IRS accountable and make certain that they stop 
targeting the American taxpayers.
  There is a positive vision for our country, Mr. Chair, a positive 
vision. It will deliver real results for the American people, A 
Balanced Budget for a Stronger America.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute and a ``yes'' on Price 2 and 
the final passage of the budget at the end of all this. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the House 
Democratic budget, which invests in hardworking American families. Our 
budget gives Americans the opportunities they need to get ahead.
  I also rise in opposition to the House Republican budget, which asks 
the American people to work harder for less money. It offers the same 
job-killing, paycheck-shrinking policies that Americans have opposed 
time and time again.
  When you compare these two budgets, the choice becomes clear. The 
Democratic budget will grow our economy and create jobs. The Republican 
budget will slash our economic growth by 2.5 percent and cost our 
nation nearly three million jobs in 2017 alone.
  The Democratic budget will preserve the Affordable Care Act, which 
has enabled more than 16 million Americans to obtain quality, 
affordable health coverage. The Republican budget will repeal the 
Affordable Care Act and eliminate this health coverage.
  The Democratic budget makes room for comprehensive immigration 
reform, which will bring clarity to our immigration system, secure our 
borders, and foster economic growth. The Republican budget continues to 
ignore the critical issue of comprehensive immigration reform.
  The Democratic budget will provide tax relief to hardworking 
families, including extensions of the Child Tax Credit, the Earned 
Income Tax Credit, and tax credits for higher education. The Republican 
budget will raise taxes by $2,000 for a typical working family, while 
millionaires will get an average tax cut of more than $200,000.
  The Democratic budget will protect Medicaid for working families and 
preserve nutrition assistance for families with low incomes. The 
Republican budget will make steep cuts to Medicaid and nutrition 
assistance, which will jeopardize the health of millions of Americans, 
including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
  The Democratic budget will preserve the Medicare guarantee. The 
Republican budget will eliminate the Medicare guarantee and raise 
traditional Medicare premiums by an average of 50 percent.
  The Democratic budget will ensure access to a high quality education 
for all, and give students the assistance they need to pay for college. 
The Republican budget will end tax cuts that help millions of working 
families afford college, slash more than $220 billion in funding for 
student loans and college aid, and gut investments in K-12 education.
  The Republican budget does not come close to addressing the needs of 
our nation; on the contrary, their budget contains devastating cuts 
that will make life harder for the American people.
  America needs the Democratic budget, which champions the interests of 
all Americans, rather than a fortunate few. The Democratic budget makes 
it easier for hardworking Americans to send their children to college, 
own a home, and have a secure and enjoyable retirement. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Van Hollen for his leadership as our 
Ranking Member on the Budget Committee and I thank him for his 
commitment to helping America's working families.
  Mr. Chair, as I've said--our budget is a statement of our national 
priorities.
  The Republican budget tells the American people that our priority 
lies with the wealthy, special interests, and the top one-percent.
  The House Republican Budget is rigged against American families.

[[Page H1980]]

  It continues the failed austerity cuts that drive families further 
into poverty.
  It forces draconian cuts on the poor, while offering more handouts to 
the wealthiest Americans.
  It keeps special interest tax breaks while claiming that there is not 
enough left to educate our young people.
  It is really unconscionable.
  By contrast, the Democratic Alternative Budget demonstrates a true 
commitment to our American ideal of opportunity for all.
  Our budget invests in families--too many of whom are making low wages 
and living below the poverty line.
  Our budget invests in our future by providing much-needed investments 
in our roads and bridges.
  It expands proven anti-poverty programs like the Earned Income Tax 
Credit and the Child Tax Credit to create pathways out of poverty.
  And it increases funding for early childhood education, including the 
President's Early Childhood Education Initiative, so every toddler is 
prepared to start and succeed in school.
  Finally--it includes comprehensive Immigration reform, which House 
Republicans have allowed to languish for two years since the Senate 
passed bipartisan reforms--so families can come out of shadows and have 
a shot at the American Dream.
  This budget says that every single American--not just the wealthy 
few--deserves a chance to succeed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
will be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-49 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Stutzman of Indiana.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland.
  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. Ellison

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96, 
noes 330, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                                AYES--96

     Adams
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Pallone
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--330

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hinojosa
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1624

  Messrs. DOGGETT, PITTENGER, LARSON of Connecticut, STIVERS, GENE 
GREEN of Texas, FINCHER, FRANKS of Arizona, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. McNERNEY, 
Ms. DeGETTE, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. HOYER 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. CICILLINE, and Ms. 
SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 136 
on H. Con. Res. 27 Ellison Amendment 1, I mistakenly recorded my vote 
as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

[[Page H1981]]

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

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 120, 
noes 306, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 137]

                               AYES--120

     Adams
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--306

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Torres
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hinojosa
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1634

  Messrs. NEAL and GENE GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 137 
on H. Con. Res. 27 Butterfield Amendment 2, I mistakenly recorded my 
vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132, 
noes 294, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 138]

                               AYES--132

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho

                               NOES--294

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper

[[Page H1982]]


     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Knight
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hinojosa
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1641

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. PITTINGER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Chair, during the vote on the Butterfield/
Scott (VA)/Lee/Moore Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Con. 
Res. 27 and the Van Hollen Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to 
H. Con. Res. 27, I was inescapably detained in my congressional 
district attending vitally important district events commemorating the 
voting rights movement. If I had been present I would have voted 
``yes'' on both of the aforementioned amendments in the nature of a 
Substitute to H. Con. Res. 27. Additionally, had I been present I would 
have voted ``no'' on the Stutzman/Flores Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute H. Con. Res. 27.


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

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) 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 Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 264, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               AYES--160

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--264

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder

[[Page H1983]]


     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Burgess
     Collins (NY)
     Hinojosa
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1652

  Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


Amendment No. 5 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Tom Price 
                               of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 114-49.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2016.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2016 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
       (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 2016.

                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.
Sec. 202. Reconciliation procedures.
Sec. 203. Additional guidance for reconciliation.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

Sec. 301. Submissions of findings for the elimination of waste, fraud, 
              and abuse.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate 
              macroeconomic effects.
Sec. 402. Limitation on measures affecting Social Security solvency.
Sec. 403. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 404. Limitation on transfers from the general fund of the Treasury 
              to the Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 405. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 406. Fair value credit estimates.
Sec. 407. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 408. Allocation for overseas contingency operations/global war on 
              terrorism.
Sec. 409. Adjustments for improved control of budgetary resources.
Sec. 410. Concepts, aggregates, allocations and application.
Sec. 411. Rulemaking powers.

                         TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 501. Reserve fund for the repeal of the President's health care 
              law.
Sec. 502. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for promoting real health care 
              reform.
Sec. 503. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare 
              provisions of the President's health care law.
Sec. 504. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the State Children's Health 
              Insurance Program.
Sec. 505. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for graduate medical education.
Sec. 506. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 507. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 508. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 509. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and increase 
              opportunity and upward mobility.
Sec. 510. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.
Sec. 511. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Federal retirement reform.
Sec. 512. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for defense sequester 
              replacement.
Sec. 513. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for overseas contingency 
              operations/global war on terrorism.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 601. Direct spending.

                TITLE VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Sec. 701. Long-term budgeting.

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 801. Policy statement on balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 802. Policy statement on budget process and baseline reform.
Sec. 803. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 804. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 805. Policy statement on trade.
Sec. 806. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 807. Policy statement on repealing the President's health care law 
              and promoting real health care reform.
Sec. 808. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 809. Policy statement on medical discovery, development, delivery 
              and innovation.
Sec. 810. Policy statement on Federal regulatory reform.
Sec. 811. Policy statement on higher education and workforce 
              development opportunity.
Sec. 812. Policy statement on Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 813. Policy statement on Federal accounting methodologies.
Sec. 814. Policy statement on scorekeeping for outyear budgetary 
              effects in appropriation Acts.
Sec. 815. Policy statement on reducing unnecessary, wasteful, and 
              unauthorized spending.
Sec. 816. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the 
              cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 817. Policy statement on agency fees and spending.
Sec. 818. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
              dollars.
Sec. 819. Policy statement on ``No Budget, No Pay''.
Sec. 820. Policy statement on national security funding.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2025:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,666,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,763,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,858,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,974,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,099,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,241,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,388,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,550,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,722,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,905,648,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $0.
       Fiscal year 2017: $0.
       Fiscal year 2018: $0.
       Fiscal year 2019: $0.
       Fiscal year 2020: $0.
       Fiscal year 2021: $0.
       Fiscal year 2022: $0.
       Fiscal year 2023: $0.
       Fiscal year 2024: $0.
       Fiscal year 2025: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,934,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,873,969,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,944,013,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,091,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,248,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,327,968,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,462,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,529,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,586,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,715,272,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,009,033,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,893,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,927,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,062,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,205,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,298,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,452,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,497,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,538,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,685,320,000,000.
       (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 2016: -$342,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$130,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$68,909,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$87,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$106,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$56,944,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$63,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $52,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $183,746,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $220,418,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The budgetary levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,047,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,393,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,641,396,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $19,947,774,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $20,261,172,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $20,505,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $20,906,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $21,075,678,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $20,916,009,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $20,904,522,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The budgetary levels of debt 
     held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,838,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,040,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,145,000,000,000.

[[Page H1984]]

       Fiscal year 2019: $14,338,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,560,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $14,742,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $15,128,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $15,300,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $15,162,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $15,235,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the budgetary 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $531,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $564,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $572,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $644,627,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $657,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $648,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $683,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $663,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $698,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $683,350,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $38,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,564,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,861,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,349,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $28,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,795,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$3,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,375,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$964,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,215,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $35,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,095,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,471,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $20,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,396,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,851,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$3,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,845,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $36,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,051,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,983,000,000.

[[Page H1985]]

       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $7,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,688,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,930,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $80,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,901,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,101,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,734,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $416,475,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $367,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $388,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $398,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $398,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $408,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $425,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $433,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $434,143,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $577,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $577,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $580,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $580,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $639,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $680,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $680,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $726,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $726,548,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $808,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $808,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $825,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $825,379,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $834,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $834,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $927,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $927,292,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $512,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $513,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $479,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $516,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $510,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $496,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $519,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $521,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,361,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $33,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $166,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,387,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $179,735,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,969,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $196,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $195,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,668,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $188,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $203,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $202,383,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $52,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,572,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,051,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $23,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:

[[Page H1986]]

       (A) New budget authority, $23,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,825,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $366,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $366,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,768,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $477,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $531,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $531,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,121,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $612,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $642,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $642,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $667,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $684,301,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $684,301,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $695,929,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $695,929,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$33,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$29,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,913,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,058,000,000.
       (20) Government-wide savings (930):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $27,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$15,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,954,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$65,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$113,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,929,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$73,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$73,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$96,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$96,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$99,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$104,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$104,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$111,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$111,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$117,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$117,896,000,000.
       (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $94,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,716,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,758,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $9,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $2,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (23) Across-the-Board Adjustment (990):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$21,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submission Providing for Deficit Reduction.--Not later 
     than July 15, 2015, the committees named in subsection (b) 
     shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives to carry out this 
     section.
       (b) Instructions.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (2) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed 
     Services shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (3) 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 $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.
       (4) 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 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.
       (5) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
     Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (6) Committee on homeland security.--The Committee on 
     Homeland Security shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $15,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (7) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (8) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
     Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (9) 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 $1,000,000,000

[[Page H1987]]

     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (10) Committee on science, space, and technology.--The 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $15,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (11) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (12) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (13) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways 
     and Means shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.

     SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Estimating Assumptions.--
       (1) Assumptions.--In the House, for purposes of titles III 
     and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall use the baseline underlying 
     the Congressional Budget Office's Budget and Economic 
     Outlook: 2015 to 2025 (January 2015) when making estimates of 
     any bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon. If adjustments to the baseline are 
     made subsequent to the adoption of this concurrent 
     resolution, then such chair shall determine whether to use 
     any of these adjustments when making such estimates.
       (2) Intent.--The authority set forth in paragraph (1) 
     should only be exercised if the estimates used to determine 
     the compliance of such measures with the budgetary 
     requirements included in the concurrent resolution are 
     inaccurate because adjustments made to the baseline are 
     inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the budgetary 
     levels set forth in this concurrent resolution. Such 
     inaccurate adjustments made after the adoption of this 
     concurrent resolution may include selected adjustments for 
     rulemaking, judicial actions, adjudication, and 
     interpretative rules that have major budgetary effects and 
     are inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the 
     budgetary levels set forth in this concurrent resolution.
       (3) Congressional budget office estimates.--Upon the 
     request of the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House for any measure, the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     prepare an estimate based on the baseline determination made 
     by such chair pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (b) Repeal of the President's Health Care Law Through 
     Reconciliation.--In preparing their submissions under section 
     201(a) to the Committee on the Budget, the committees named 
     in section 201(b) shall--
       (1) note the policies described in the report accompanying 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget that repeal the 
     Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of 
     the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; and
       (2) determine the most effective methods by which the 
     health care laws referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     repealed in their entirety.
       (c) Revision of Budgetary Levels.--
       (1) Submission.--Upon the submission to the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House of a recommendation that has complied 
     with its reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of 
     section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Conference report.--Upon the submission to the House of 
     a conference report recommending a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution in which a committee has complied with its 
     reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of this section, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House may 
     file with the House appropriately revised allocations under 
     section 302(a) of such Act and revised functional levels and 
     aggregates.
       (3) Revision.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Guidance.--In the House, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may develop additional guidelines providing 
     further information, budgetary levels and amounts, and other 
     explanatory material to supplement the instructions included 
     in this concurrent resolution pursuant to section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and set forth in section 
     201.
       (b) Publication.--In the House, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may cause the material prepared pursuant to 
     subsection (a) to be printed in the Congressional Record on 
     the appropriate date, but not later than the date set forth 
     in this title on which committees must submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget in order to 
     comply with the reconciliation instructions set forth in 
     section 201.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

     SEC. 301. SUBMISSIONS OF FINDINGS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

       (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse.--In the House, not later than October 1, 
     2015, the committees named in subsection (d) shall submit to 
     the Committee on the Budget findings that identify changes in 
     law within their jurisdictions that would achieve the 
     specified level of savings through the elimination of waste, 
     fraud, and abuse.
       (b) Recommendations Submitted.--After receiving those 
     recommendations --
       (1) the Committee on the Budget may use them in the 
     development of future concurrent resolutions on the budget; 
     and
       (2) the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     shall make such recommendations publicly available in 
     electronic form and cause them to be placed in the 
     Congressional Record not later than 30 days after receipt.
       (c) Specified Levels of Savings.--For purposes of this 
     section, a specified level of savings for each committee may 
     be inserted in the Congressional Record by the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (d) House Committees.--The following committees shall 
     submit findings to the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     of Representatives pursuant to subsection (a): the Committee 
     on Agriculture, the Committee on Armed Services, the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, the Committee on House Administration, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, the Committee on Natural Resources, the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on 
     Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       (e) Report by the Government Accountability Office.--By 
     August 1, 2015, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives a 
     comprehensive report identifying instances in which the 
     committees referred to in subsection (d) may make legislative 
     changes to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 
     of programs within their jurisdiction.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. COST ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR LEGISLATION TO INCORPORATE 
                   MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS.

       (a) CBO Estimates.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, an estimate provided by the Congressional 
     Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 for any major legislation considered in the House 
     or the Senate during fiscal year 2016 shall, to the extent 
     practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in 
     economic output, employment, capital stock, and other 
     macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.
       (b) Joint Committee on Taxation Estimates.--For purposes of 
     the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, any estimate 
     provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation to the Director 
     of the Congressional Budget Office under section 201(f) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major 
     legislation shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the 
     budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, 
     capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting 
     from such legislation.
       (c) Contents.--Any estimate referred to in this section 
     shall, to the extent practicable, include--
       (1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects 
     (including macroeconomic variables described in subsections 
     (a) and (b)) of such legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
     beginning after the last fiscal year of this concurrent 
     resolution sets forth budgetary levels required by section 
     301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the 
     source of data underlying that estimate.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``major legislation'' means any bill or joint 
     resolution--
       (A) for which an estimate is required to be prepared 
     pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and that causes a gross budgetary effect (before 
     incorporating macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year over 
     the years of the most recently agreed to concurrent 
     resolution on the budget equal to or greater than 0.25 
     percent of the current projected gross domestic product of 
     the United States for that fiscal year; or
       (B) designated as such by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget for all direct spending legislation other than revenue 
     legislation or the Member who is chair or vice chair, as 
     applicable, of the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue 
     legislation; and
       (2) the term ``budgetary effects'' means changes in 
     revenues, budget authority, outlays, and deficits.

     SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON MEASURES AFFECTING SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   SOLVENCY.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, it shall not be in order to consider in

[[Page H1988]]

     the House or the Senate a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reduces 
     the actuarial balance by at least .01 percent of the present 
     value of future taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund established under section 
     201(a) of the Social Security Act for the 75-year period 
     utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of 
     Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a measure 
     that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined 
     balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 
     75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of 
     the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 403. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (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 enforcing 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 
     discretionary amounts described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 404. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF 
                   THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       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. 405. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in 
     subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in 
     the report to accompany this concurrent resolution or the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers to accompany this 
     concurrent resolution under the heading:
       (1) General.--``Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''; and
       (2) Veterans.--``Veterans Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--The aggregate level of advance 
     appropriations shall not exceed--
       (1) General.--$28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     all programs identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1); and
       (2) Veterans.--$63,271,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs identified 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Definition.--The term ``advance appropriation'' means 
     any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or 
     joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, making general appropriations or continuing 
     appropriations, for the fiscal year following fiscal year 
     2016.

     SEC. 406. FAIR VALUE CREDIT ESTIMATES.

       (a) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or 
     ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate 
     of the budgetary effects of a measure prepared by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office under the terms 
     of title V of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, ``credit 
     reform'' shall, as a supplement to such estimate, and 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.
       (b) Fair Value Estimates for Housing and Student Loan 
     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 budgetary effects 
     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 budgetary effect related to a housing, 
     residential mortgage or student loan program under title V of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 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 effect.
       (c) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a) 
     or (b), 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. 407. 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 in the fiscal year following the last 
     fiscal year of this concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 408. ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
                   GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Separate OCO/GWOT Allocation.--In the House, there 
     shall be a separate allocation of new budget authority and 
     outlays provided to the Committee on Appropriations for the 
     purposes of Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism.
       (b) Application.--For purposes of enforcing the separate 
     allocation referred to in subsection (a) 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 2016. Section 302(c) of such Act shall 
     not apply to such separate allocation.
       (c) Designations.--New budget authority or outlays counting 
     toward the allocation established by subsection (a) shall be 
     designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Adjustments.--For purposes of subsection (a) for fiscal 
     year 2016, 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. 409. ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVED CONTROL OF BUDGETARY 
                   RESOURCES.

       (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending 
     Levels.--In the House, if a committee (other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or offers any amendment thereto or submits a 
     conference report thereon, providing for a decrease in direct 
     spending (budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for 
     any fiscal year and also provides for an authorization of 
     appropriations for the same purpose, upon the enactment of 
     such measure, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     decrease the allocation to such committee and increase the 
     allocation of discretionary spending (budget authority and 
     outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2016 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) Determinations.--In the House, for the purpose of 
     enforcing this concurrent resolution, the allocations and 
     aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for fiscal year 2016 and the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through fiscal year 2025 shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget and such chair may adjust applicable levels of this 
     concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 410. CONCEPTS, AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS AND APPLICATION.

       (a) Concepts, Allocations, and Application.--In the House--
       (1) upon a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution accordingly;
       (2) any adjustments of the allocations, aggregates, and 
     other budgetary levels made pursuant to this concurrent 
     resolution shall--
       (A) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (B) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable;
       (3) section 202 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) shall 
     have no force or effect for any reconciliation bill reported 
     pursuant to instructions set forth in this concurrent 
     resolution;
       (4) the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary 
     levels to reflect changes resulting from the most recently 
     published or adjusted baseline of the Congressional Budget 
     Office; and
       (5) the term ``budget year'' means the most recent fiscal 
     year for which a concurrent resolution on the budget has been 
     adopted.
       (b) Aggregates, Allocations and Application.--In the House, 
     for purposes of this concurrent resolution and budget 
     enforcement--
       (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 budgetary 
     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 407 of this 
     concurrent resolution; and

[[Page H1989]]

       (2) 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.

     SEC. 411. 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 V--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 501. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   HEALTH CARE LAW.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that consists solely of the 
     full repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the health care-
     related provisions of the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 or measures that make 
     modifications to such law.

     SEC. 502. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROMOTING REAL 
                   HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that promotes real health care 
     reform, if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 503. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE 
                   MEDICARE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH 
                   CARE LAW.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     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 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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 504. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure extends the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 505. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, expands access to, and 
     improves, as determined by such chair, graduate medical 
     education programs, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     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 budgetary 
     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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 507. 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 budgetary 
     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 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 508. 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 budgetary 
     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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 509. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE POVERTY AND 
                   INCREASE OPPORTUNITY AND UPWARD MOBILITY.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms policies and programs to 
     reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward mobility, 
     but only if such measure would neither adversely impact job 
     creation nor increase the deficit over the period of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 510. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure maintains the solvency of the 
     Highway Trust Fund, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 511. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FEDERAL RETIREMENT 
                   REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, improves and updates the 
     Federal retirement system, as determined by such chair, but 
     only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 512. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFENSE SEQUESTER 
                   REPLACEMENT.

       The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure supports the following activities: Department of 
     Defense training and maintenance associated with combat 
     readiness, modernization of equipment, auditability of 
     financial statements, or military compensation and benefit 
     reforms, by the amount provided for these purposes, but only 
     if such measure would not increase the deficit (without 
     counting any net revenue increases in that measure) over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 513. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR OVERSEAS 
                   CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure is related to the support of Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation in excess of $73.5 billion but not to exceed 
     $94 billion, but only if such measure would not increase the 
     deficit (without counting any net revenue increases in that 
     measure) over the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 601. 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 2016 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2016 is 4.6 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending:
       (A) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a Democratic 
     president reformed welfare by limiting the duration of 
     benefits, giving States more control over the program, and 
     helping recipients find work. In the five years following 
     passage, child-poverty rates fell, welfare caseloads fell, 
     and workers' wages increased. This budget applies the lessons 
     of welfare reform to both the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program and Medicaid.
       (B) For Medicaid, this budget assumes the conversion of the 
     Federal share of Medicaid spending into flexible State 
     allotments, which States will be able to tailor to meet their 
     unique needs. Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-
     fits-all approach that ties the hands of State governments 
     and would provide States with the freedom and flexibility 
     they have long requested in the Medicaid program. Moreover, 
     this budget assumes the repeal of the Medicaid expansions in 
     the President's health care law, relieving State governments 
     of the crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates, as 
     well as the overwhelming pressure the law's Medicaid 
     expansion puts on an already-strained system.
       (C) For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this 
     budget assumes the conversion of the program into a flexible 
     State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs. The 
     allotment would increase based on the Department of 
     Agriculture Thrifty

[[Page H1990]]

     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.
       (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 2016 is 5.4 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 2016 is 5.5 
     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. Future retirees would be able to 
     choose from a range of guaranteed coverage options, with 
     private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-
     service Medicare program. Medicare would provide a premium-
     support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of 
     the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost. 
     The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so 
     that the sick would receive higher payments if their 
     conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive 
     additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and 
     wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater 
     share of their premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how 
     their health care dollars are spent will force providers to 
     compete against each other on price and quality. This market 
     competition will act as a real check on widespread waste and 
     skyrocketing health care costs. As with previous budgets, 
     this program will begin in 2024 and makes no changes to those 
     in or near retirement.
       (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 VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

     SEC. 701. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

       The following are the recommended revenue, spending, and 
     deficit levels for each of fiscal years 2030, 2035, and 2040 
     as a percent of the gross domestic product of the United 
     States:
       (1) Revenues.--The budgetary levels of Federal revenues are 
     as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 18.7 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 19.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 19.0 percent.
       (2) Outlays.--The budgetary levels of total budget outlays 
     are not to exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: 18.4 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 17.8 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 16.9 percent.
       (3) Deficits.--The budgetary levels of deficits are not to 
     exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: -0.3 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: -1.2 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: -2.1 percent.
       (4) Debt.--The budgetary levels of debt held by the public 
     are not to exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: 44.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 32.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 18.0 percent.

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

     SEC. 801. POLICY STATEMENT ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Government collects approximately $3 
     trillion annually in taxes, but spends more than $3.5 
     trillion to maintain the operations of government. The 
     Federal Government must borrow 14 cents of every Federal 
     dollar spent.
       (2) At the end of the year 2014, the national debt of the 
     United States was more than $18.1 trillion.
       (3) A majority of States have petitioned the Federal 
     Government to hold a Constitutional Convention for the 
     consideration of adopting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution.
       (4) Forty-nine States have fiscal limitations in their 
     State Constitutions, including the requirement to annually 
     balance the budget.
       (5) H.J. Res. 2, sponsored by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-
     VA), was considered by the House of Representatives on 
     November 18, 2011, though it received 262 aye votes, it did 
     not receive the two-thirds required for passage.
       (6) Numerous balanced budget amendment proposals have been 
     introduced on a bipartisan basis in the House. Twelve were 
     introduced in the 113th Congress alone, including H.J. Res. 4 
     by Democratic Representative John J. Barrow of Georgia, and 
     H.J. Res. 38 by Republican Representative Jackie Walorski of 
     Indiana.
       (7) The joint resolution providing for a balanced budget 
     amendment to the U.S. Constitution referred to in paragraph 
     (5) prohibited outlays for a fiscal year (except those for 
     repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts 
     for that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) 
     unless Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote of each 
     chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over 
     receipts.
       (8) In 1995, a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
     Constitution passed the House with bipartisan support, but 
     failed of passage by one vote in the United States Senate.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this resolution 
     that Congress should pass a joint resolution incorporating 
     the provisions set forth in subsection (b), and send such 
     joint resolution to the States for their approval, to amend 
     the Constitution of the United States to require an annual 
     balanced budget.

     SEC. 802. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET PROCESS AND BASELINE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) In 1974, after more than 50 years of executive 
     dominance over fiscal policy, Congress acted to reassert its 
     ``power of the purse'', and passed the Congressional Budget 
     and Impoundment Control Act.
       (2) The measure explicitly sought to establish 
     congressional control over the budget process, to provide for 
     annual congressional determination of the appropriate level 
     of taxes and spending, to set important national budget 
     priorities, and to find ways in which Members of Congress 
     could have access to the most accurate, objective, and 
     highest quality information to assist them in discharging 
     their duties.
       (3) Far from achieving its intended purpose, however, the 
     process has instituted a bias toward higher spending and 
     larger government. The behemoth of the Federal Government has 
     largely been financed through either borrowing or taking ever 
     greater amounts of the national income through high taxation.
       (4) The process does not treat programs and policies 
     consistently and shows a bias toward higher spending and 
     higher taxes.
       (5) It assumes extension of spending programs (of more than 
     $50 million per year) scheduled to expire.
       (6) Yet it does not assume the extension of tax policies in 
     the same way. consequently, extending existing tax policies 
     that may be scheduled to expire is characterized as a new tax 
     reduction, requiring offsets to ``pay for'' merely keeping 
     tax policy the same even though estimating conventions would 
     not require similar treatment of spending programs.
       (7) The original goals set for the congressional process 
     are admirable in their intent, but because the essential 
     mechanisms of the process have remained the same, and 
     ``reforms'' enacted over the past 40 years have largely taken 
     the form of layering greater levels of legal complexity 
     without reforming or reassessing the very fundamental nature 
     of the process.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget that as the primary branch of 
     Government, Congress must:
       (1) Restructure the fundamental procedures of budget 
     decision making;
       (2) Reassert Congress's ``power of the purse'', and 
     reinforce the balance of powers between Congress and the 
     President, as the 1974 Act intended.
       (3) Create greater incentives for lawmakers to do budgeting 
     as intended by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     especially adopting a budget resolution every year.
       (4) Encourage more effective control over spending, 
     especially currently uncontrolled direct spending.
       (5) Consider innovative fiscal tools such as: zero based 
     budgeting, which would require a department or agency to 
     justify its budget as if it were a new expenditure; and 
     direct spending caps to enhance oversight of automatic pilot 
     spending that increases each year without congressional 
     approval.
       (6) Promote efficient and timely budget actions, so that 
     lawmakers complete their budget actions by the time the new 
     fiscal year begins.
       (7) Provide access to the best analysis of economic 
     conditions available and increase awareness of how fiscal 
     policy directly impacts overall economic growth and job 
     creation,
       (9) Remove layers of complexity that have complicated the 
     procedures designed in 1974, and made budgeting more arcane 
     and opaque.
       (10) Remove existing biases that favor higher spending.
       (11) Include procedures by which current tax laws may be 
     extended and treated on a basis that is not different from 
     the extension of entitlement programs.
       (c) Budget Process Reform.--Comprehensive budget process 
     reform should also remove the bias in the baseline against 
     the extension of current tax laws in the following ways:
       (1) Permanent extension of tax laws should not be used as a 
     means to increase taxes on other taxpayers;
       (2) For those expiring tax provisions that are proposed to 
     be permanently extended, Congress should use a more realistic 
     baseline that does not require them to be offset; and,
       (3) Tax-reform legislation should not include tax increases 
     just to offset the extension of current tax laws.
       (d) Legislation.--The Committee on the Budget intends to 
     draft legislation during the 114th Congress that will rewrite 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     to fulfill the goals of making the congressional budget 
     process more effective in ensuring taxpayers' dollars are 
     spent wisely and efficiently.

     SEC. 803. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB 
                   CREATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Although the United States economy technically emerged 
     from recession more than 5 years ago, the subsequent recovery 
     has felt more like a malaise than a rebound. Real gross 
     domestic product GDP growth

[[Page H1991]]

     over the past 5 years has averaged slightly more than 2 
     percent, well below the 3.2 percent historical trend rate of 
     growth in the United States. Although the economy has shown 
     some welcome signs of improvement of late, the Nation remains 
     in the midst of the weakest economic recovery of the modern 
     era.
       (2) Looking ahead, CBO expects the economy to grow by an 
     average of just 2.3 percent over the next 10 years. That 
     level of economic growth is simply unacceptable and 
     insufficient to expand opportunities and the incomes of 
     millions of middle-income Americans.
       (3) Sluggish economic growth has also contributed to the 
     country's fiscal woes. Subpar growth means that revenue 
     levels are lower than they would otherwise be while 
     government spending (e.g. welfare and income-support 
     programs) is higher. Clearly, there is a dire need for 
     policies that will spark higher rates of economic growth and 
     greater, higher-quality job opportunities
       (4) Although job gains have been trending up of late, other 
     aspects of the labor market remain weak. The labor force 
     participation rate, for instance, is hovering just under 63 
     percent, close to the lowest level since 1978. Long-term 
     unemployment also remains a problem. Of the roughly 8.7 
     million people who are currently unemployed, 2.7 million 
     (more than 30 percent) have been unemployed for more than 6 
     months. Long-term unemployment erodes an individual's job 
     skills and detaches them from job opportunities. It also 
     undermines the long-term productive capacity of the economy.
       (5) Perhaps most important, wage gains and income growth 
     have been subpar for middle-class Americans. Average hourly 
     earnings of private-sector workers have increased by just 1.6 
     percent over the past year. Prior to the recession, average 
     hourly earnings were tracking close to 4 percent. Likewise, 
     average income levels have remained flat in recent years. 
     Real median household income is just under $52,000, one of 
     the lowest levels since 1995.
       (6) The unsustainable fiscal trajectory has cast a shadow 
     on the country's economic outlook. 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. This debt overhang, and the uncertainty it 
     generates, can weigh on growth, investment, and job creation.
       (7) Nearly all economists, including those at the CBO, 
     conclude that reducing budget deficits (thereby bending the 
     curve on debt levels is a net positive for economic growth 
     over time. The logic is that deficit reduction creates long-
     term economic benefits because it increases the pool of 
     national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising 
     economic growth and job creation.
       (8) CBO analyzed the House Republican fiscal year 2016 
     budget resolution and found it would increase real output per 
     capita (a proxy for a country's standard of living) by about 
     $1,000 in 2025 and roughly $5,000 by 2040 relative to the 
     baseline path. That means more income and greater prosperity 
     for all Americans.
       (9) In contrast, if the Government remains on the current 
     fiscal path, future generations will face ever-higher debt 
     service costs, a decline in national savings, and a 
     ``crowding out'' of private investment. This dynamic will 
     eventually lead to a decline in economic output and a 
     diminution in our country's standard of living.
       (10) The key economic challenge is determining how to 
     expand the economic pie, not how best to divide up and re-
     distribute a shrinking pie.
       (11) A stronger economy is vital to lowering deficit levels 
     and eventually balancing the budget. According to CBO, if 
     annual real GDP growth is just 0.1 percentage point higher 
     over the budget window, deficits would be reduced by $326 
     billion.
       (12) This budget resolution therefore embraces pro-growth 
     policies, such as fundamental tax reform, that will help 
     foster a stronger economy, greater opportunities and more job 
     creation.
       (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 will 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 helping the economy grow and expanding opportunity for all 
     Americans.

     SEC. 804. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, and 
     promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The United 
     States tax code fails on all three counts: It is notoriously 
     complex, patently unfair, and highly inefficient. The tax 
     code's complexity distorts decisions to work, save, and 
     invest, which leads to slower economic growth, lower wages, 
     and less job creation.
       (2) Over the past decade alone, there have been 4,107 
     changes to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of the 
     major changes over the years have involved carving out 
     special preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various 
     activities or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 
     trillion per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and 
     highly complex.
       (3) In addition, these tax preferences are 
     disproportionately used by upper-income individuals.
       (4) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the 
     code end up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base, in 
     turn, requires much higher tax rates to raise a given amount 
     of revenue.
       (5) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up spending 
     $160 billion and roughly 6 billion hours a year complying 
     with the tax code waste of time and resources that could be 
     used in more productive activities.
       (6) Standard economic theory shows that high marginal tax 
     rates dampen the incentives to work, save, and invest, which 
     reduces economic output and job creation. Lower economic 
     output, in turn, mutes the intended revenue gain from higher 
     marginal tax rates.
       (7) Roughly half of 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 can reach nearly 45 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 slightly more than 39 
     percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Tax 
     rates this high suppress wages and discourage investment and 
     job creation, distort business activity, and put American 
     businesses at a competitive disadvantage with foreign 
     competitors.
       (9) By deterring potential investment, the 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 United States firms 
     twice, putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage 
     with competitors with more competitive international tax 
     systems.
       (11) Reforming the United States tax code to a more 
     competitive international system would boost the 
     competitiveness of United States companies operating abroad 
     and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
       (12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers through 
     lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and on investors 
     in diminished returns.
       (13) Revenues have averaged about 17.4 percent of the 
     economy throughout modern American history. Revenues rise 
     above this level under current law to 18.3 percent of the 
     economy by the end of the 10-year budget window.
       (14) Attempting to raise revenue through new tax increases 
     to meet out-of-control spending would sink the economy and 
     Americans' ability to save for their retirement and their 
     children's education.
       (15) This resolution also rejects the idea of instituting a 
     carbon tax in the United States, which some have offered as a 
     new source of revenue. Such a plan would damage the economy, 
     cost jobs, and raise prices on American consumers.
       (16) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not 
     constitute fundamental tax reform.
       (17) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate 
     loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the 
     board not to fund more wasteful Government spending. 
     Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
       (18) Many economists believe that fundamental tax reform 
     (i.e. a broader tax base and lower tax rates) would lead to 
     greater labor supply and increased investment, which, over 
     time, would have a positive impact on total national output.
       (19) Heretofore, the congressional scorekeepers the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation (JCT).
       (20) Static scoring implicitly assumes that the size of the 
     economy (and therefore key economic variables such as labor 
     supply and investment) remains fixed throughout the 
     considered budget horizon. This is an abstraction from 
     reality.
       (21) A new House rule was adopted at the beginning of the 
     114th Congress to help correct this problem. This rule 
     requires CBO and JCT to incorporate the macroeconomic effects 
     of major legislation into their official cost estimates.
       (22) This rule seeks to bridge the divide between static 
     estimates and scoring that incorporates economic feedback 
     effects by providing policymakers with a greater amount of 
     information about the likely economic impact of policies 
     under their consideration while at the same time preserving 
     traditional scoring methods and reporting conventions.
       (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should

[[Page H1992]]

     enact legislation that provides for a comprehensive reform of 
     the United States tax code to promote economic growth, create 
     American jobs, increase wages, and benefit American 
     consumers, investors, and workers through fundamental tax 
     reform that--
       (1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to American 
     families and businesses and reduces the amount of time and 
     resources necessary to comply with tax laws;
       (2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals and 
     consolidates the current seven individual income tax brackets 
     into fewer brackets;
       (3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
       (4) reduces the corporate tax rate; and
       (5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive system 
     of international taxation in a manner that does not 
     discriminate against any particular type of income or 
     industry.

     SEC. 805. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Opening foreign markets to American exports is vital to 
     the United States economy and beneficial to American workers 
     and consumers. The Commerce Department estimates that every 
     $1 billion of United States exports supports more than 5,000 
     jobs here at home.
       (2) The United States can increase economic opportunities 
     for American workers and businesses through the expansion of 
     trade, adherence to trade agreement rules by the United 
     States and its trading partners, and the elimination of 
     foreign trade barriers to United States goods and services.
       (3) Trade Promotion Authority is a bipartisan and bicameral 
     effort to strengthen the role of Congress in setting 
     negotiating objectives for trade agreements, to improve 
     consultation with Congress by the Administration, and to 
     provide a clear framework for congressional consideration and 
     implementation of trade agreements.
       (4) Global trade and commerce is not a zero-sum game. The 
     idea that global expansion tends to ``hollow out'' United 
     States operations is incorrect. Foreign-affiliate activity 
     tends to complement, not substitute for, key parent 
     activities in the United States such as employment, worker 
     compensation, and capital investment. When United States 
     headquartered multinationals invest and expand operations 
     abroad it often leads to more jobs and economic growth at 
     home.
       (5) Trade agreements have saved the average American family 
     of four more than $10,000 per year, as a result of lower 
     duties. Trade agreements also lower the cost of manufacturing 
     inputs by removing duties.
       (6) American businesses and workers have shown that, on a 
     level playing field, they can excel and surpass the 
     international competition.
       (7) When negotiating trade agreements, United States laws 
     on Intellectual Property (IP) protection should be used as a 
     benchmark for establishing global IP frameworks. Strong IP 
     protections have contributed significantly to the United 
     States status as a world leader in innovation across sectors, 
     including in the development of life-saving biologic 
     medicines. The data protections afforded to biologics in 
     United States law, including 12 years of data protection, 
     allow continued development of pioneering medicines to 
     benefit patients both in the United States and abroad. To 
     maintain the cycle of innovation and achieve truly 21st 
     century trade agreements, it is vital that our negotiators 
     insist on the highest standards for IP protections.
       (8) The status quo of the current tax code also undermines 
     the competitiveness of United States businesses and costs the 
     United States economy investment and jobs.
       (9) The United States currently has an antiquated system of 
     international taxation whereby United States multinationals 
     operating abroad pay both the foreign-country tax and United 
     States corporate taxes. They are essentially taxed twice. 
     This puts them at an obvious competitive disadvantage. A 
     modern and competitive international tax system would 
     facilitate global commerce for United States multinational 
     companies and would encourage foreign business investment and 
     job creation in the United States.
       (10) The ability to defer United States taxes on their 
     foreign operations, which some erroneously refer to as a 
     ``tax loophole,'' cushions this disadvantage to a certain 
     extent. Eliminating or restricting this provision (and others 
     like it) would harm United States competitiveness.
       (11) This budget resolution advocates fundamental tax 
     reform that would lower the United States corporate rate, now 
     the highest in the industrialized world, and switch to a more 
     competitive system of international taxation. This would make 
     the United States a much more attractive place to invest and 
     station business activity and would chip away at the 
     incentives for United States companies to keep their profits 
     overseas (because the United States corporate rate is so 
     high).
       (b) Policy on Trade.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution to pursue international trade, global commerce, 
     and a modern and competitive United States international tax 
     system to promote job creation in the United States. The 
     United States should continue to seek increased economic 
     opportunities for American workers and businesses through the 
     expansion of trade opportunities, adherence to trade 
     agreements and rules by the United States and its trading 
     partners, and the elimination of foreign trade barriers to 
     United States goods and services by opening new markets and 
     by enforcing United States rights. To that end, Congress 
     should pass Trade Promotion Authority to strengthen the role 
     of Congress in setting negotiating objectives for trade 
     agreements, to improve consultation with Congress by the 
     Administration, and to provide a clear framework for 
     congressional consideration and implementation of trade 
     agreements.

     SEC. 806. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the 
     financial condition of Social Security becomes more 
     precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced:
       (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be 
     exhausted and program revenues will be unable to pay 
     scheduled benefits.
       (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and Survivors and 
     Disability Trust Funds will be exhausted, and program 
     revenues will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 2033, 
     benefits will be cut nearly 23 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 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections 
     find that Social Security will run cash deficits of more than 
     $2 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 CBO, between 1970 and 2012, the 
     number of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled 
     workers and their dependent family members) has increased by 
     more than 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 20 percent in 2016, devastating 
     individuals who need assistance the most.
       (7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed on a 
     bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan 
     Commission'' which helped to address Social Security 
     shortfalls for more than a generation.
       (8) Americans deserve action by the President, the House, 
     and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social Security. It 
     is critical that bipartisan action be taken to address the 
     looming insolvency of Social Security. In this spirit, this 
     resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to find solutions 
     by requiring policymakers to ensure that Social Security 
     remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution 
     assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
       (1) If in any year the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual Trustees Report 
     determines that the 75-year actuarial balance of the Social 
     Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the annual balance of 
     the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th year is in 
     deficit, the Board of Trustees should, 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 1 December of the same calendar year in 
     which the Board of Trustees submit their recommendations, the 
     President should promptly submit implementing legislation to 
     both Houses of Congress including his recommendations 
     necessary to achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and 
     a positive annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority 
     Leader of the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House 
     should 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 should report a bill, which should be 
     considered by the full House or Senate under expedited 
     procedures.

[[Page H1993]]

       (4) Legislation submitted by the President should--
       (A) protect those in or near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who count on Social 
     Security the most, including those with disabilities and 
     survivors;
       (C) improve fairness for participants;
       (D) reduce the burden on, and provide certainty for, future 
     generations; and
       (E) secure the future of the Disability Insurance program 
     while addressing the needs of those with disabilities today 
     and improving the determination process.
       (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution that Congress and the President should enact 
     legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability 
     Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should 
     not raid the Social Security retirement system without 
     reforms to the Disability Insurance system. This resolution 
     assumes reform that--
       (1) ensure benefits continue to be paid to individuals with 
     disabilities and their family members who rely on them;
       (2) prevents a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut;
       (3) makes the Disability Insurance program work better; and
       (4) promotes opportunity for those trying to return to 
     work.
       (d) Policy on Social Security Solvency.--Any legislation 
     that Congress considers to improve the solvency of the 
     Disability Insurance trust fund also must improve the long-
     term solvency of the combined Old Age and Survivors 
     Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund.

     SEC. 807. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPEALING THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   HEALTH CARE LAW AND PROMOTING REAL HEALTH CARE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The President's health care law put Washington's 
     priorities first, and not patients'. The Affordable Care Act 
     (ACA) has failed to reduce health care premiums as promised; 
     instead, the law mandated benefits and coverage levels, 
     denying patients the opportunity to choose the type of 
     coverage that best suits their health needs and driving up 
     health coverage costs. A typical family's health care 
     premiums were supposed to decline by $2,500 a year; instead, 
     according to the 2014 Employer Health Benefits Survey, health 
     care premiums have increased by 7 percent for individuals and 
     families since 2012.
       (2) The President pledged ``If you like your health care 
     plan, you can keep your health care plan.'' Instead, the 
     nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates 9 
     million Americans with employment-based health coverage will 
     lose those plans due to the President's health care law, 
     further limiting patient choice.
       (3) Then-Speaker of the House, Pelosi, said that the 
     President's health care law would create 4 million jobs over 
     the life of the law and almost 400,000 jobs immediately. 
     Instead, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
     reduction in hours worked due to Obamacare represents a 
     decline of about 2.0 to 2.5 million full-time equivalent 
     workers, compared with what would have occurred in the 
     absence of the law. The full impact on labor represents a 
     reduction in employment by 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent, while 
     additional studies show less modest results. A recent study 
     by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimates 
     that Obamacare will reduce employment by up to 3 percent, or 
     about 4 million full-time equivalent workers.
       (4) The President has charged the Independent Payment 
     Advisory Board, a panel of unelected bureaucrats, with 
     cutting Medicare by an additional $20.9 billion over the next 
     ten years, according to the President's most recent budget.
       (5) Since ACA was signed into law, the administration has 
     repeatedly failed to implement it as written. The President 
     has unilaterally acted to make a total of 28 changes, delays, 
     and exemptions. The President has signed into law another 17 
     changes made by Congress. The Supreme Court struck down the 
     forced expansion of Medicaid; ruled the individual 
     ``mandate'' could only be characterized as a tax to remain 
     constitutional; and rejected the requirement that closely 
     held companies provide health insurance to their employees if 
     doing so violates these companies' religious beliefs. Even 
     now, almost five years after enactment, the Supreme Court 
     continues to evaluate the legality of how the President's 
     administration has implemented the law. All of these changes 
     prove the folly underlying the entire program health care in 
     the United States cannot be run from a centralized 
     bureaucracy.
       (6) The President's health care law is unaffordable, 
     intrusive, overreaching, destructive, and unworkable. The law 
     should be fully repealed, allowing for real, patient-centered 
     health care reform: the development of real health care 
     reforms that puts patients first, that make affordable, 
     quality health care available to all Americans, and that 
     build on the innovation and creativity of all the 
     participants in the health care sector.
       (b) Policy on Promoting Real Health Care Reform.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that the President's health care 
     law should be fully repealed and real health care reform 
     promoted in accordance with the following principles:
       (1) In general.--Health care reform should enhance 
     affordability, accessibility, quality, innovation, choices 
     and responsiveness in health care coverage for all Americans, 
     putting patients, families, and doctors in charge, not 
     Washington, DC. These reforms should encourage increased 
     competition and transparency. Under the President's health 
     care law, government controls Americans' health care choices. 
     Under true, patient-centered reform, Americans would.
       (2) Affordability.--Real reform should be centered on 
     ensuring that all Americans, no matter their age, income, or 
     health status, have the ability to afford health care 
     coverage. The health care delivery structure should be 
     improved, and individuals should not be priced out of the 
     health insurance market due to pre-existing conditions, but 
     nationalized health care is not only unnecessary to 
     accomplish this, it undermines the goal. Individuals should 
     be allowed to join together voluntarily to pool risk through 
     mechanisms such as Individual Membership Associations and 
     Small Employer Membership Associations.
       (3) Accessability.--Instead of Washington outlining for 
     Americans the ways they cannot use their health insurance, 
     reforms should make health coverage more portable. 
     Individuals should be able to own their insurance and have it 
     follow them in and out of jobs throughout their career. Small 
     business owners should be permitted to band together across 
     State lines through their membership in bona fide trade or 
     professional associations to purchase health coverage for 
     their families and employees at a low cost. This will 
     increase small businesses' bargaining power, volume 
     discounts, and administrative efficiencies while giving them 
     freedom from State-mandated benefit packages. Also, insurers 
     licensed to sell policies in one State should be permitted to 
     offer them to residents in any other State, and consumers 
     should be permitted to shop for health insurance across State 
     lines, as they are with other insurance products online, by 
     mail, by phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent.
       (4) Quality.--Incentives for providers to deliver high-
     quality, responsive, and coordinated care will promote 
     patient outcomes and drive down health care costs. likewise, 
     reforms that work to restore the patient-physician 
     relationship by reducing administrative burdens and allowing 
     physicians to do what they do best: care for patients
       (5) Choices.--Individuals and families should be free to 
     secure the health care coverage that best meets their needs, 
     rather than instituting one-size-fits-all directives from 
     Federal bureaucracies such as the Internal Revenue Service, 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
     Independent Payment Advisory Board.
       (6) Innovation.--Instead of stifling innovation in health 
     care technologies, treatments, medications, and therapies 
     with Federal mandates, taxes, and price controls, a reformed 
     health care system should encourage research, development and 
     innovation.
       (7) Responsiveness.--Reform should return authority to 
     States wherever possible to make the system more responsive 
     to patients and their needs. Instead of tying States' hands 
     with Federal requirements for their Medicaid programs, the 
     Federal Government should return control of this program to 
     the States. Not only does the current Medicaid program drive 
     up Federal debt and threaten to bankrupt State budgets, but 
     States are better positioned to provide quality, affordable 
     care to those who are eligible for the program and to track 
     down and weed out waste, fraud and abuse. Beneficiary choices 
     in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and 
     Medicaid should be improved. States should make available the 
     purchase of private insurance as an option to their Medicaid 
     and SCHIP populations (though they should not require 
     enrollment).
       (8) Reforms.--Reforms should be made to prevent lawsuit 
     abuse and curb the practice of defensive medicine, which are 
     significant drivers increasing health care costs. The burden 
     of proof in medical malpractice cases should be based on 
     compliance with best practice guidelines, and States should 
     be free to implement those policies to best suit their needs.

     SEC. 808. 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 
     Medicare Trustees Report--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2030 and unable to pay scheduled benefits;
       (B) Medicare enrollment is expected to increase by over 50 
     percent in the next two decades, as 10,000 baby boomers reach 
     retirement age each day;
       (C) enrollees remain in Medicare three times longer than at 
     the outset of the program;
       (D) current workers' payroll contributions pay for current 
     beneficiaries;
       (E) in 2013, the ratio was 3.2 workers per beneficiary, but 
     this falls to 2.3 in 2030 and continues to decrease over 
     time;
       (F) most Medicare beneficiaries receive about three dollars 
     in Medicare benefits for every one dollar paid into the 
     program; and

[[Page H1994]]

       (G) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy 
     and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6.5 
     percent per year over the next 10 years. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office's 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook, 
     spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent of gross 
     domestic product (GDP) by 2043 and 9.3 percent of GDP by 
     2089.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to preserve the program for those in or near 
     retirement and strengthen Medicare for future beneficiaries.
       (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) permanent reform of the sustainable growth rate is 
     responsibly accounted for to ensure physicians continue to 
     participate in the Medicare program and provide quality 
     health care for beneficiaries;
       (3) when future generations 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;
       (4) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-service as a 
     plan option;
       (5) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower 
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks; and
       (6) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
     Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

     SEC. 809. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAL DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, 
                   DELIVERY AND INNOVATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For decades, the Nation's commitment to the discovery, 
     development, and delivery of new treatments and cures has 
     made the United States the biomedical innovation capital of 
     the world, bringing life-saving drugs and devices to patients 
     and well over a million high-paying jobs to local 
     communities.
       (2) Thanks to the visionary and determined leadership of 
     innovators throughout America, including industry, academic 
     medical centers, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
     the United States has led the way in early discovery. The 
     United States leadership role is being threatened, however, 
     as other countries contribute more to basic research from 
     both public and private sources.
       (3) The Organisation for Economic Development and 
     Cooperation predicts that China, for example, will outspend 
     the United States in total research and development by the 
     end of the decade.
       (4) Federal policies should foster innovation in health 
     care, not stifle it. America should maintain its world 
     leadership in medical science by encouraging competitive 
     forces to work through the marketplace in delivering cures 
     and therapies to patients.
       (5) Too often the bureaucracy and red-tape in Washington 
     hold back medical innovation and prevent new lifesaving 
     treatments from reaching patients. This resolution recognizes 
     the valuable role of the NIH and the indispensable 
     contributions to medical research coming from outside 
     Washington.
       (6) America is the greatest, most innovative Nation on 
     Earth. Her people are innovators, entrepreneurs, visionaries, 
     and relentless builders of the future. Americans were 
     responsible for the first telephone, the first airplane, the 
     first computer, for putting the first man on the moon, for 
     creating the first vaccine for polio and for legions of other 
     scientific and medical breakthroughs that have improved and 
     prolonged human health and life for countless people in 
     America and around the world.
       (b) Policy on Medical Innovation.--
       (1) It is the policy of this resolution to support the 
     important work of medical innovators throughout the country, 
     including private-sector innovators, medical centers and the 
     National Institutes of Health.
       (2) At the same time, the budget calls for continued strong 
     funding for the agencies that engage in valuable research and 
     development, while also urging Washington to get out of the 
     way of researchers, discoverers and innovators all over the 
     country.

     SEC. 810. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY REFORM.

       (a) Findings.-- The House finds the following:
       (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job 
     creation and dampened the economy, slowing the Nation's 
     recovery from the economic recession.
       (2) Since President Obama's inauguration in 2009, the 
     administration has issued more than 468,500 pages of 
     regulations in the Federal Register including 70,066 pages in 
     2014.
       (3) The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the 
     total cost of regulations is as high as $2.03 trillion per 
     year. Since 2009, the White House has generated more than 
     $494 billion in regulatory activity, with an additional $87.6 
     billion in regulatory costs currently pending.
       (4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation (Public 
     Law 111-203) has resulted in more than $32 billion in 
     compliance costs and saddled job creators with more than 63 
     million hours of compliance paperwork.
       (5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to date has 
     added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance paperwork, 
     imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs on the private 
     sector and an $8 billion cost burden on the States.
       (6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations 
     are primarily targeted at the coal industry. In June 2014, 
     the EPA proposed a rule to cut carbon pollution from the 
     Nation's power plants. The proposed standards are 
     unachievable with current commercially available technology, 
     resulting in a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power plants.
       (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly 40 percent of 
     the United States electricity at a low cost. Unfairly 
     targeting the coal industry with costly and unachievable 
     regulations will increase energy prices, disproportionately 
     disadvantaging energy-intensive industries like manufacturing 
     and construction, and will make life more difficult for 
     millions of low-income and middle class families already 
     struggling to pay their bills.
       (8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being retired 
     or converted as a result of EPA regulations. Combined with 
     the de-facto prohibition on new plants, these retirements and 
     conversions may further increase the cost of electricity.
       (9) A recent study by the energy market analysis group 
     Energy Ventures Analysis Inc. estimates the average energy 
     bill in West Virginia will rise $750 per household by 2020, 
     due in part to EPA regulations. West Virginia receives 95 
     percent of its electricity from coal.
       (10) The Heritage Foundation found that a phase-out of coal 
     would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 2023, resulting in an 
     aggregate gross domestic product decrease of $2.23 trillion 
     over the entire period and reducing the income of a family of 
     four by $1,200 per year. Of these jobs, 330,000 will come 
     from the manufacturing sector, with California, Texas, Ohio, 
     Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, North 
     Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the highest job 
     losses.
       (b) Policy on Federal Regulatory Reform.--It is the policy 
     of this resolution that Congress should, in consultation with 
     the public burdened by excessive regulation, enact 
     legislation that--
       (1) promotes economic growth and job creation by 
     eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and 
     simplifying Federal regulations;
       (2) requires the implementation of a regulatory budget to 
     be allocated amongst Government agencies, which would require 
     congressional approval and limit the maximum costs of 
     regulations in a given year;
       (3) requires congressional approval of all new major 
     regulations (those with an impact of $100 million or more) 
     before enactment as opposed to current law in which Congress 
     must expressly disapprove of regulation to prevent it from 
     becoming law, which would keep Congress engaged as to pending 
     regulatory policy and prevent costly and unsound policies 
     from being implemented and becoming effective;
       (4) requires a three year retrospective cost-benefit 
     analysis of all new major regulations, to ensure that 
     regulations operate as intended;
       (5) reinforces the requirement of regulatory impact 
     analysis for regulations proposed by executive branch 
     agencies but also expands the requirement to independent 
     agencies so that by law they consider the costs and benefits 
     of proposed regulations rather than merely being encouraged 
     to do so as is current practice; and
       (6) requires a formal rulemaking process for all major 
     regulations, which would increase transparency over the 
     process and allow interested parties to communicate their 
     views on proposed legislation to agency officials.

     SEC. 811. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 
                   DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings on Higher Education.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) A well-educated workforce is critical to economic, job, 
     and wage growth.
       (2) Roughly 20 million students are enrolled in American 
     colleges and universities.
       (3) Over the past decade, tuition and fees have been 
     growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2004-2005 
     Academic Year and the 2014-2015 Academic Year--
       (A) published tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 3.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation;
       (B) published tuition and fees at public two-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 2.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation; and
       (C) published tuition and fees at private nonprofit 4-year 
     colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 2.2 
     percent per year above the rate of inflation.
       (4) Federal financial aid for higher education has also 
     seen a dramatic increase. The portion of the Federal student 
     aid portfolio composed of Direct Loans, Federal Family 
     Education Loans, and Perkins Loans with outstanding balances 
     grew by 119 percent between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 
     2014.
       (5) This spending has failed to make college more 
     affordable.
       (6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama 
     noted: ``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

[[Page H1995]]

     New York, student debt now stands at nearly $1.2 trillion. 
     This makes student loans the second largest balance of 
     consumer debt, 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 2017 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 
     $5,775 in each year of the budget window; and
       (4) removing regulatory barriers in higher education that 
     act to restrict flexibility and innovative teaching, 
     particularly as it relates to non-traditional models such as 
     online coursework and competency-based learning.
       (c) Findings on Workforce Development.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) 8.7 million Americans are currently unemployed.
       (2) Despite billions of dollars in spending, those looking 
     for work are stymied by a broken workforce development system 
     that fails to connect workers with assistance and employers 
     with trained personnel.
       (3) The House Education and Workforce Committee 
     successfully consolidated 15 job training programs in the 
     recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
       (d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution to address the failings in the current 
     workforce development system, by--
       (1) further streamlining and consolidating Federal job 
     training programs; and
       (2) empowering states with the flexibility to tailor 
     funding and programs to the specific needs of their 
     workforce, including the development of career scholarships.

     SEC. 812. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For years, there has been serious concern regarding the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bureaucratic 
     mismanagement and continuous failure to provide veterans 
     timely access to health care and benefits.
       (2) In 2014, reports started breaking across the Nation 
     that VA medical centers were manipulating wait-list documents 
     to hide long delays veterans were facing to receive health 
     care. The VA hospital scandal led to the immediate 
     resignation of then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. 
     Shinseki.
       (3) In 2015, for the first time ever, VA health care was 
     added to the ``high-risk'' list of the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO), due to management and oversight 
     failures that have directly resulted in risks to the 
     timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and quality of health care.
       (4) In response to the scandal, the House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs held several oversight hearings and 
     ultimately enacted the Veterans' Access, Choice and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (VACAA) (Public Law 113-146) to 
     address these problems. VACAA provided $15 billion in 
     emergency resources to fund internal health care needs within 
     the department and provided veterans enhanced access to 
     private-sector health care under the new Veterans Choice 
     Program.
       (b) Policy on the Department of Veterans Affairs.--This 
     budget supports the continued oversight efforts by the House 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs to ensure the VA is not only 
     transparent and accountable, but also successful in achieving 
     its goals in providing timely health care and benefits to 
     America's veterans. The Budget Committee will continue to 
     closely monitor the VA's progress to ensure resources 
     provided by Congress are sufficient and efficiently used to 
     provide needed benefits and services to veterans.

     SEC. 813. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL ACCOUNTING 
                   METHODOLOGIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Given the thousands of Federal programs and trillions 
     of dollars the Federal Government spends each year, assessing 
     and accounting for Federal fiscal activities and liabilities 
     is a complex undertaking.
       (2) Current methods of accounting leave much to be desired 
     in capturing the full scope of government and in presenting 
     information in a clear and compelling way that illuminates 
     the best options going forward.
       (3) Most fiscal analysis produced by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) is conducted over a relatively short time 
     horizon: 10 or 25 years. While this time frame is useful for 
     most purposes, it fails to consider the fiscal consequences 
     over the longer term.
       (4) Additionally, current accounting methodology does not 
     provide an analysis of how the Federal Government's fiscal 
     situation over the long run affects Americans of various age 
     cohorts.
       (5) Another consideration is how Federal programs should be 
     accounted for. The ``accrual method'' of accounting records 
     revenue when it is earned and expenses when they are 
     incurred, while the ``cash method'' records revenue and 
     expenses when cash is actually paid or received.
       (6) The Federal budget accounts for most programs using 
     cash accounting. Some programs, however, particularly loan 
     and loan guarantee programs, are accounted for using accrual 
     methods.
       (7) GAO has indicated that accrual accounting may provide a 
     more accurate estimation of the Federal Government's 
     liabilities than cash accounting for some programs 
     specifically those that provide some form of insurance.
       (8) Where accrual accounting is used, it is almost 
     exclusively calculated by CBO according to the methodology 
     outlined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). CBO 
     uses fair value methodology instead of FCRA to measure the 
     cost of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example.
       (9) FCRA methodology, however, understates the risk and 
     thus the true cost of Federal programs. An alternative is 
     fair value methodology, which uses discount rates that 
     incorporate the risk inherent to the type of liability being 
     estimated in addition to Treasury discount rates of the 
     proper maturity length.
       (10) The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that 
     ``adopting a fair-value approach would provide a more 
     comprehensive way to measure the costs of Federal credit 
     programs and would permit more level comparisons between 
     those costs and the costs of other forms of federal 
     assistance'' than the current approach under FCRA.
       (b) Policy on Federal Accounting Methodologies.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that Congress should, in 
     consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     public affected by Federal budgetary choices, adopt 
     Governmentwide reforms of budget and accounting practices so 
     the American people and their representatives can more 
     readily understand the fiscal situation of the Government of 
     the United States and the options best suited to improving 
     it. Such reforms may include but should not be limited to the 
     following:
       (1) Providing additional metrics to enhance our current 
     analysis by considering our fiscal situation comprehensively, 
     over an extended time horizon, and as it affects Americans of 
     various age cohorts.
       (2) Expanding the use of accrual accounting where 
     appropriate.
       (3) Accounting for certain Federal credit programs using 
     fair value accounting as opposed to the current approach 
     under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

     SEC. 814. POLICY STATEMENT ON SCOREKEEPING FOR OUTYEAR 
                   BUDGETARY EFFECTS IN APPROPRIATION ACTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     directs the Committee on the Budget to provide an allocation 
     of budgetary resources to the Committee on Appropriations for 
     the budget year covered by a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       (2) The allocation of budgetary resources provided by the 
     Committee on the Budget to the Committee on Appropriations 
     covers a period of one fiscal year only, which is effective 
     for the budget year.
       (3) An appropriation Act, joint resolution, amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon may contain changes to 
     programs that result in direct budgetary effects that occur 
     beyond the budget year and beyond the period for which the 
     allocation of budgetary resources provided by the Committee 
     on the Budget is effective.
       (4) The allocation of budgetary resources provided to the 
     Committee on Appropriations does not currently anticipate or 
     capture direct outyear budgetary effects to programs.
       (5) Budget enforcement could be improved by capturing the 
     direct outyear budgetary effects caused by appropriation Acts 
     and using this information to determine the appropriate 
     allocations of budgetary resources to the Committee on 
     Appropriations when considering future concurrent resolutions 
     on the budget.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of the House of 
     Representatives to more effectively allocate budgetary 
     resources and accurately enforce budget targets by agreeing 
     to a procedure by which the Committee on the Budget should 
     consider the direct outyear budgetary effects of changes to 
     mandatory programs enacted in appropriations bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments thereto or conference reports thereon 
     when setting the allocation of budgetary resources for the 
     Committee on Appropriations in a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget. The relevant committees of jurisdiction are directed 
     to consult on a procedure during fiscal year 2016 and include 
     recommendations for implementing such procedure in the fiscal 
     year 2017 concurrent resolution on the budget.

     SEC. 815. POLICY STATEMENT ON REDUCING UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, 
                   AND UNAUTHORIZED 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 its report to Congress on Government Efficiency and 
     Effectiveness, the Comptroller General has stated that 
     addressing the identified waste, duplication, and

[[Page H1996]]

     overlap in Federal programs could ``lead to tens of billions 
     of dollars of additional savings.''
       (3) In 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 the GAO issued reports 
     showing excessive duplication and redundancy in Federal 
     programs including--
       (A) two hundred nine Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics education programs in 13 different Federal 
     agencies at a cost of $3 billion annually;
       (B) two hundred separate Department of Justice crime 
     prevention and victim services grant programs with an annual 
     cost of $3.9 billion in 2010;
       (C) twenty 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) seventeen separate Homeland Security preparedness grant 
     programs that spent $37 billion between fiscal year 2011 and 
     2012;
       (E) fourteen grant and loan programs, and three tax 
     benefits to reduce diesel emissions;
       (F) ninety-four different initiatives run by 11 different 
     agencies to encourage ``green building'' in the private 
     sector; and
       (G) twenty-three agencies implemented approximately 670 
     renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of 
     nearly $15 billion.
       (4) The Federal Government spends more than $80 billion 
     each year for approximately 1,400 information technology 
     investments. GAO has identified broad acquisition failures, 
     waste, and unnecessary duplication in the Government's 
     information technology infrastructure. experts have estimated 
     that eliminating these problems could save 25 percent or $20 
     billion.
       (5) GAO has identified strategic sourcing as a potential 
     source of spending reductions. In 2011 GAO estimated that 
     saving 10 percent of the total or all Federal procurement 
     could generate more than $50 billion in savings annually.
       (6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $106 billion in 
     improper payments in fiscal year 2013.
       (7) Under clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least 
     one hearing during each 120 day period following its 
     establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in 
     Government programs.
       (8) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal 
     year 2015, 32 laws will expire, possibly resulting in $693 
     billion in unauthorized appropriations. Timely 
     reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of 
     program justification and effectiveness.
       (9) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs should result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy on Reducing Unnecessary, Wasteful, and 
     Unauthorized Spending.--
       (1) Each authorizing committee annually should 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.
       (2) Committees of jurisdiction should review all 
     unauthorized programs funded through annual appropriations to 
     determine if the programs are operating efficiently and 
     effectively.
       (3) Committees should reauthorize those programs that in 
     the committees' judgment should continue to receive funding.
       (4) For those programs not reauthorized by committees, the 
     House of Representatives should enforce the limitations on 
     funding such unauthorized programs in the House rules. If the 
     strictures of the rules are deemed to be too rapid in 
     prohibiting spending on unauthorized programs, then milder 
     measures should be adopted and enforced until a return to the 
     full prohibition of clause 2(a)(1) of rule XXI of the Rules 
     of the House.

     SEC. 816. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                   CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) According to the most recent estimate from the Office 
     of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were expected to 
     hold $844 billion in unobligated balances at the close of 
     fiscal year 2015.
       (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending 
     previously made available by Congress that remains available 
     for expenditure.
       (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 canceling unobligated 
     balances of funds that are no longer needed.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
     Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees should 
     through their oversight activities identify and achieve 
     savings through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated 
     balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 
     Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under 
     programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national 
     security, and Treasury authority to finance the national 
     debt.
       (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of 
     the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, 
     and other appropriate agencies should continue to make it a 
     high priority to review unobligated balances and identify 
     savings for deficit reduction.

     SEC. 817. POLICY STATEMENT ON AGENCY FEES AND SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) A number of Federal agencies and organizations have 
     permanent authority to collect fees and other offsetting 
     collections and to spend these collected funds.
       (2) The total amount of offsetting fees and offsetting 
     collections is estimated by the Office of Management and 
     Budget to be $525 billion in fiscal year 2016.
       (3) Agency budget justifications are, in some cases, not 
     fully transparent about the amount of program activity funded 
     through offsetting collections or fees. This lack of 
     transparency prevents effective and accountable government.
       (b) Policy on Agency Fees and Spending.--It is the policy 
     of this resolution that Congress must reassert its 
     constitutional prerogative to control spending and conduct 
     oversight. To do so, Congress should enact legislation 
     requiring programs that are funded through fees, offsetting 
     receipts, or offsetting collections to be allocated new 
     budget authority annually. Such allocation may arise from--
       (1) legislation originating from the authorizing committee 
     of jurisdiction for the agency or program; or
       (2) fee and account specific allocations included in annual 
     appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 818. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF 
                   TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

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

     SEC. 819. POLICY STATEMENT ON ``NO BUDGET, NO PAY''.

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

     SEC. 820. POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Russian aggression, the growing threats of the Islamic 
     State of Iraq and the Levant in the Middle East, North Korean 
     and Iranian nuclear and missile programs, and continued 
     Chinese investments in high-end military capabilities and 
     cyber warfare shape the parameters of an increasingly complex 
     and challenging security environment.
       (2) All four current service chiefs testified that the 
     National Military Strategy could not be executed at 
     sequestration levels.
       (3) The independent and bipartisan National Defense Panel 
     conducted risk assessments of force structure changes 
     triggered by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) and 
     concluded that in addition to previous cuts to defense dating 
     back to 2009, the sequestration of defense discretionary 
     spending has ``caused significant shortfalls in U.S. military 
     readiness and both present and future capabilities''.
       (4) The President's fiscal year 2016 budget irresponsibly 
     ignores current law and requests a defense budget $38 billion 
     above the

[[Page H1997]]

     caps for rhetorical gain. By creating an expectation of 
     spending without a plan to avoid the BCA's guaranteed 
     sequester upon breaching of its caps, the White House's 
     proposal compounds the fiscal uncertainty that has affected 
     the military's ability to adequately plan for future 
     contingencies and make investments crucial for the Nation's 
     defense.
       (5) The President's budget proposes $1.8 trillion in tax 
     increases, in addition to the $1.7 trillion in tax hikes the 
     Administration has already imposed. The President's tax 
     increases would further burden economic growth and is not a 
     realistic source for offsets to fund defense sequester 
     replacement.
       (b) Policy on Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Funding.--
     In fiscal year 2015, the House-passed budget resolution 
     anticipated $566 billion for national defense in the 
     discretionary base budget for fiscal year 2016. With no 
     necessary statutory change yet provided by Congress, the BCA 
     statute would require limiting national defense discretionary 
     base funding to $523 billion in fiscal year 2016. However, in 
     total with $90 billion, the House Budget estimate for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations funding for the Department of 
     Defense, the fiscal year 2016 budget provides over $613 
     billion total for defense spending that is higher than the 
     President's budget request for the fiscal year. This 
     concurrent resolution provides $22 billion above the 
     President's Five Year Defense Plan and $151 billion above the 
     10-year totals. This would also be $387 billion above the 10-
     year total for current levels.
       (c) Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund.--(1) The 
     budget resolution recognizes the need to ensure robust 
     funding for national defense while maintaining overall fiscal 
     discipline. The budget resolution prioritizes our national 
     defense and the needs of the warfighter by providing needed 
     dollars through the creation of the ``Defense Readiness and 
     Modernization Fund''.
       (2) The Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund provides 
     the mechanism for Congress to responsibly allocate in a 
     deficit-neutral way the resources the military needs to 
     secure the safety and liberty of United States citizens from 
     threats at home and abroad. The Defense Readiness and 
     Modernization Fund will provide the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House the ability to increase allocations 
     to support legislation that would provide for the Department 
     of Defense warfighting capabilities, modernization, a 
     temporary increase in end strength, training and maintenance 
     associated with combat readiness, activities to reach full 
     auditability of the Department of Defense's financial 
     statements, and implementation of military and compensation 
     reforms.
       (d) Sequester Replacement for National Defense.--This 
     concurrent resolution encourages an immediate reevaluation of 
     Federal Government priorities to maintain the strength of 
     America's national security posture. In identifying policies 
     to restructure and stabilize the Government's major 
     entitlement programs which, along with net interest, will 
     consume all Federal revenue in less than 20 years. The budget 
     also charts a course that can ensure the availability of 
     needed national security resources.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 163, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues 
for their participation yesterday. We had extensive debate on the 
committee mark yesterday; so I will review, very briefly, the committee 
mark and then touch on the differences between this and the next 
substitute amendment.
  This amendment is the committee mark. It is A Balanced Budget for a 
Stronger America. As we have talked about, this balances the budget in 
less than 10 years. It does so without raising taxes, which is 
absolutely vital.
  All of the other alternatives that were brought from our friends on 
the other side of the aisle to the floor today, every one of them, 
raised significant taxes on the American people. We set out a path to 
be able to provide for a fairer, simpler, a more appropriate tax code 
where Washington isn't picking winners and losers.
  Our underlying resolution repeals all of ObamaCare. It eliminates the 
Independent Payment Advisory Board. It lays out a path for patient-
centered health care, where patients and families and doctors are 
making medical decisions, not Washington, D.C.
  We ensure a strong national defense. Our numbers, when you combine 
the base budget with the global war on terror budget, are above the 
President's numbers required for making certain that our men and women 
who stand in harm's way have the resources available to make certain 
they can protect not just us, but protect themselves.
  We secure our future by laying out a path to save and strengthen and 
secure Medicare and Medicaid. It is so incredibly important. Medicare, 
itself, has been estimated by the trustees to go insolvent--to go 
broke--in 2033. It is absolutely vital that this Congress recognize the 
challenge before us and lay out a path for saving and strengthening and 
securing Medicare, and we do just that.
  We restore federalism. We think it is important to increase choices 
and opportunities for the men and women back home. It is imperative 
that we have increased flexibility for States, not just in the area of 
health care and in the area of Medicaid, but also in the area of 
nutritional assistance and in the area of education. Folks in our 
States and in our local communities know better how to respond to the 
needs of their citizens; and we cut corporate waste, fraud, and abuse 
and corporate welfare.
  Positive solutions, Mr. Chairman, in a bill that we label ``A 
Balanced Budget for a Stronger America,'' solutions that will get us on 
track to revive this economy, get folks back to work, and make certain 
that we put a cap on the debt and begin to put us on a path to paying 
off the debt, we can only do that if we get to balance.
  This is A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America. I encourage our 
colleagues to adopt and to support this substitute.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, let me start with something, I think, 
Members who are listening to this debate should know already, which is 
that the Republican budget does not balance, not by a long shot.
  It assumes the revenue from the Affordable Care Act even though they 
claim to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't account for the 
costs of additional tax cuts that are coming through this House as we 
speak, and, if the revenue from that were lost, their budget would be 
even further out of balance.
  In fact, just today, in the Ways and Means Committee, they are 
increasing the deficit by over $250 billion over 10 years by giving a 
huge tax cut to 5,500 families in getting rid of the estate tax.
  Now, everyone should understand that the estate tax only applies to 
couples with estates worth over $10 million. They are saying that 
people with estates worth $10 million, who have done really well, 
shouldn't contribute anything toward investments in our country, even 
toward deficit reduction. That increases the deficit right away and 
puts their budget even more out of balance, so this doesn't come close 
to balancing.
  While it is actually cutting special interest tax breaks for folks at 
the very high end of the income scale, it actually disinvests in the 
rest of the country. They dramatically cut the portion of our budget 
that we use to invest in our kids' futures, in early education, in 
kindergarten through grade 12.
  They make it harder for students to afford college. They say they are 
going to start charging students interest while they are still in 
college, even though we have record student debt of over $1 trillion in 
this country.

                              {time}  1700

  They make it harder on seniors right away. Seniors will pay more for 
prescription drugs, seniors on Medicare; seniors will pay more in 
copays for preventive care. If they really got rid of the Affordable 
Care entirely, seniors would also be paying higher part B premiums. 
That is what they say they want to do, get rid of it entirely.
  The Democratic budget which we put forward presents an alternative. 
We were disappointed that this body voted against that and decided, 
instead, to support a budget that squeezes hard-working families and is 
hard on everyone in America except for those who are already at the 
very top.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I ask the Chair how much time remains on 
each side.

[[Page H1998]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I am prepared to close, so I will reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just emphasize a couple of specifics in the 
Republican budget that is before us.
  We haven't talked a lot about seniors in nursing homes. You know, 
two-thirds of Medicaid goes to help seniors and disabled individuals in 
nursing homes, and yet the Republican budget cuts $900 billion from 
Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office says one of two things will 
happen: either States will increase taxes back home or seniors will get 
less care.
  The Republican budget provides less for our veterans this year than 
the President's budget, less by $1.9 billion, $19 billion less for the 
Veterans Administration over the next 10 years compared to the 
President's budget.
  At the same time, their budget plays games with defense spending. 
That is why we have so-called Price 1 and Price 2. Neither Price is 
right here. They both play games with our defense spending by using our 
defense overseas contingency account as a slush fund, something the 
Republican-led Committee on the Budget said last year they would not 
do. In fact, they said it was a backdoor loophole that undermines the 
integrity of the budget process.
  This is the committee report. This is the Republican-drafted 
committee report when Mr. Ryan was chairman of the committee 1 year 
ago. Tear it up. Just as they said what they are doing would violate 
the integrity of the budget process, it does. That is exactly what it 
does. It plays games with our defense spending.
  The President's budget, the Democratic budget, did this in a 
straightforward way. We said, look, Joint Chiefs of Staff, our military 
leadership says that they need a certain amount for funding our defense 
needs in our base budget and a certain amount for overseas 
contingencies. The President's budget and Democratic budget funded 
that. Republican budgets, all of them, all of the ones here, play games 
with that.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope as we consider this Republican budget that plays 
games with defense spending, which disinvests in America and in our 
future, and which squeezes hard-working Americans every day even 
harder, working families, seniors, students--the only people it says, 
``Don't worry. You don't have to do more to help this country move 
forward'' are folks at the very top. They get a tax rate cut, and they 
don't cut a single special interest tax break. That is the wrong way 
for America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, somewhere across this land 
somebody has turned to their wife at home and said: ``Hide the kids and 
pets, dear. They are talking about the budget.''
  I really am amazed. Well, I shouldn't be amazed, but I really am 
amazed at the level of misinformation and hyperbole that goes on. The 
gentleman on the other side knows that the way that we treat the 
defense spending, $613 billion with base defense and global war on 
terror funding, is exactly the way it has to be treated until the law 
is changed. The gentleman on the other side didn't even recognize that, 
the Democrats don't recognize that, the President doesn't recognize 
that. He puts a phony number in his budget that will snap right back 
down to the sequester level of $523 billion unless the law is changed--
something that we actually support, something in our budget that we 
provide a path to be able to do. We provide the path to a solution. The 
other folks are just providing rhetoric.
  What about balance? Here are the deficits over the next 10 years, Mr. 
Chairman. The red line is current policy. What the President and our 
friends on the other side do actually mirrors, basically, that line. 
You will notice that at the end of this, this gets near to a trillion 
dollars of deficit in 1 year. These folks think you can just spend and 
spend and spend.
  This is our line. This gets us down to balance. This is how you begin 
to pay off the debt. This is how you begin to provide greater 
opportunities for the American people, a budget of real hope, real 
opportunity. Our friends on the other side say it is harder on seniors 
and students and workers and Medicaid--not true. What we actually do is 
propose solutions to the challenges that we face.
  We can't stick our head in the sand and expect these problems are 
going to get solved. I just wish that our friends on the other side 
would join us together and help solve these challenges. The challenges 
are huge. The American people know it.
  What our budget does, A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America 
actually lays out a path to be able to solve these challenges, positive 
solutions for the American people. They recognize that. We are standing 
up on behalf of all Americans to solve the challenges that we have. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


Amendment No. 6 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Tom Price 
                              of Georgia.

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 114-49.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2016.

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2016 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
       (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 2016.

                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.
Sec. 202. Reconciliation procedures.
Sec. 203. Additional guidance for reconciliation.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

Sec. 301. Submissions of findings for the elimination of waste, fraud, 
              and abuse.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate 
              macroeconomic effects.
Sec. 402. Limitation on measures affecting Social Security solvency.
Sec. 403. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 404. Limitation on transfers from the general fund of the Treasury 
              to the Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 405. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 406. Fair value credit estimates.
Sec. 407. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 408. Allocation for overseas contingency operations/global war on 
              terrorism.
Sec. 409. Adjustments for improved control of budgetary resources.
Sec. 410. Concepts, aggregates, allocations and application.
Sec. 411. Rulemaking powers.

                         TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 501. Reserve fund for the repeal of the President's health care 
              law.
Sec. 502. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for promoting real health care 
              reform.
Sec. 503. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare 
              provisions of the President's health care law.
Sec. 504. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the State Children's Health 
              Insurance Program.
Sec. 505. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for graduate medical education.
Sec. 506. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 507. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.

[[Page H1999]]

Sec. 508. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 509. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and increase 
              opportunity and upward mobility.
Sec. 510. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.
Sec. 511. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Federal retirement reform.
Sec. 512. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for defense sequester 
              replacement.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 601. Direct spending.

                TITLE VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Sec. 701. Long-term budgeting.

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 801. Policy statement on balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 802. Policy statement on budget process and baseline reform.
Sec. 803. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 804. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 805. Policy statement on trade.
Sec. 806. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 807. Policy statement on repealing the President's health care law 
              and promoting real health care reform.
Sec. 808. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 809. Policy statement on medical discovery, development, delivery 
              and innovation.
Sec. 810. Policy statement on Federal regulatory reform.
Sec. 811. Policy statement on higher education and workforce 
              development opportunity.
Sec. 812. Policy statement on Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 813. Policy statement on Federal accounting methodologies.
Sec. 814. Policy statement on scorekeeping for outyear budgetary 
              effects in appropriation Acts.
Sec. 815. Policy statement on reducing unnecessary, wasteful, and 
              unauthorized spending.
Sec. 816. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the 
              cancellation of unobligated balances.
Sec. 817. Policy statement on agency fees and spending.
Sec. 818. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
              dollars.
Sec. 819. Policy statement on ``No Budget, No Pay''.
Sec. 820. Policy statement on national security funding.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2025:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,666,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,763,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,858,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $2,974,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,099,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,241,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,388,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,550,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,722,144,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,905,648,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $0.
       Fiscal year 2017: $0.
       Fiscal year 2018: $0.
       Fiscal year 2019: $0.
       Fiscal year 2020: $0.
       Fiscal year 2021: $0.
       Fiscal year 2022: $0.
       Fiscal year 2023: $0.
       Fiscal year 2024: $0.
       Fiscal year 2025: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,936,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,874,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,944,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,091,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,248,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,328,045,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,463,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,529,161,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,586,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,715,369,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,010,185,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,894,439,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,927,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,062,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,205,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,298,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,452,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,497,999,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,538,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $3,685,327,000,000.
       (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 2016: -$343,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$131,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$69,145,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$88,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$106,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$57,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$63,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $52,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $183,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $220,321,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The budgetary levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,048,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,395,251,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,643,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $19,949,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $20,263,382,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $20,507,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $20,908,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $21,078,135,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $20,918,559,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $20,907,169,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The budgetary levels of debt 
     held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,839,152,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,041,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,146,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $14,340,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,562,210,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $14,744,287,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $15,130,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $15,302,457,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $15,164,550,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025: $15,237,647,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the budgetary 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $531,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $564,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $582,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $572,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,422,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $620,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $644,627,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $657,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $648,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,997,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $683,771,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $663,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $698,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $683,350,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $38,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,923,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,539,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,214,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,390,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,564,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,861,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,108,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,349,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $28,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,584,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,957,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,003,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,488,000,000.

[[Page H2000]]

       (B) Outlays, $33,795,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$3,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,259,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $863,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,375,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,332,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$964,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,215,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $35,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,206,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,304,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,367,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,962,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,095,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,471,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $20,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,396,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,835,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,386,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,830,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,821,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,020,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,256,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,851,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$3,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$16,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$12,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$10,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,998,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$8,801,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,769,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,819,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,965,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,306,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,991,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,370,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,845,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $36,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $76,397,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,051,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,763,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,149,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,369,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,613,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,128,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,336,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,709,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $83,983,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $7,082,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,688,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,753,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,089,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,409,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,567,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $12,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,359,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,447,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,930,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $80,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,389,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $84,746,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,513,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,029,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,366,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $85,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,901,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $88,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $90,467,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,744,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $93,101,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $94,734,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $416,475,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $360,678,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $364,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $358,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $360,468,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,103,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $367,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $387,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $388,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $389,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $398,136,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $398,233,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $408,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $408,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $425,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $425,477,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $433,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $434,143,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $577,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $577,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $580,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,777,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $580,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $580,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,293,000,000.

[[Page H2001]]

       (B) Outlays, $639,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $680,575,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $680,481,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $726,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $726,548,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $808,204,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $808,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $825,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $825,379,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $834,148,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $834,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $927,410,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $927,292,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $512,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $513,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $479,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $475,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $481,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $516,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $510,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $502,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $496,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $518,690,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $518,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,230,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $519,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,515,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $521,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $550,057,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $543,361,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $33,878,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,535,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $166,677,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,387,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,385,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,862,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $179,735,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,969,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $196,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $195,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,668,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $188,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $203,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $202,383,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $52,156,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,854,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,572,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,032,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,051,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $23,593,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,202,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,817,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,279,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,252,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,084,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,947,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,192,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,981,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,010,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,825,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $366,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $366,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $414,802,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $414,802,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $477,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $477,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $531,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $531,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,726,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,198,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $612,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $642,470,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $642,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $667,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $684,394,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $684,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $696,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $696,025,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$33,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,275,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$29,863,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,277,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$34,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$39,009,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$42,221,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$38,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$49,123,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$47,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$48,913,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$48,058,000,000.
       (20) Government-wide savings (930):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $27,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$15,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$3,005,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$32,429,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$41,554,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$50,240,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$42,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$50,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,954,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$57,849,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$71,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$65,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,889,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$71,689,000,000.

[[Page H2002]]

       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$113,903,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,929,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$73,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$73,514,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,832,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,115,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,594,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$96,623,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$96,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$99,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$99,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$104,343,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$104,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$111,213,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$111,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$117,896,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$117,896,000,000.
       (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority $96,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,442,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,191,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,916,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $9,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $2,869,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $0.
       (23) Across-the-Board Adjustment (990):
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority -$21,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$22,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$21,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$25,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2025:
       (A) New budget authority, -$27,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Submission Providing for Deficit Reduction.--Not later 
     than July 15, 2015, the committees named in subsection (b) 
     shall submit their recommendations to the Committee on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives to carry out this 
     section.
       (b) Instructions.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
     shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (2) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed 
     Services shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (3) 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 $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.
       (4) 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 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.
       (5) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
     Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (6) Committee on homeland security.--The Committee on 
     Homeland Security shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $15,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (7) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
     Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (8) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
     Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (9) 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 $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (10) Committee on science, space, and technology.--The 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $15,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (11) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall submit 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the deficit by $100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through 2025.
       (12) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
     for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
       (13) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways 
     and Means shall submit changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
     $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.

     SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Estimating Assumptions.--
       (1) Assumptions.--In the House, for purposes of titles III 
     and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget shall use the baseline underlying 
     the Congressional Budget Office's Budget and Economic 
     Outlook: 2015 to 2025 (January 2015) when making estimates of 
     any bill or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon. If adjustments to the baseline are 
     made subsequent to the adoption of this concurrent 
     resolution, then such chair shall determine whether to use 
     any of these adjustments when making such estimates.
       (2) Intent.--The authority set forth in paragraph (1) 
     should only be exercised if the estimates used to determine 
     the compliance of such measures with the budgetary 
     requirements included in the concurrent resolution are 
     inaccurate because adjustments made to the baseline are 
     inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the budgetary 
     levels set forth in this concurrent resolution. Such 
     inaccurate adjustments made after the adoption of this 
     concurrent resolution may include selected adjustments for 
     rulemaking, judicial actions, adjudication, and 
     interpretative rules that have major budgetary effects and 
     are inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the 
     budgetary levels set forth in this concurrent resolution.
       (3) Congressional budget office estimates.--Upon the 
     request of the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     House for any measure, the Congressional Budget Office shall 
     prepare an estimate based on the baseline determination made 
     by such chair pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (b) Repeal of the President's Health Care Law Through 
     Reconciliation.--In preparing their submissions under section 
     201(a) to the Committee on the Budget, the committees named 
     in section 201(b) shall--
       (1) note the policies described in the report accompanying 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget that repeal the 
     Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of 
     the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; and
       (2) determine the most effective methods by which the 
     health care laws referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     repealed in their entirety.
       (c) Revision of Budgetary Levels.--
       (1) Submission.--Upon the submission to the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House of a recommendation that has complied 
     with its reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of 
     section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may file with the House 
     appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of 
     such Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
       (2) Conference report.--Upon the submission to the House of 
     a conference report recommending a reconciliation bill or 
     resolution in which a committee has complied with its 
     reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of this section, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House may 
     file with the House appropriately revised allocations under 
     section 302(a) of such Act and revised functional levels and 
     aggregates.
       (3) Revision.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
     to this subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
     aggregates

[[Page H2003]]

     established by the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

     SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR RECONCILIATION.

       (a) Guidance.--In the House, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may develop additional guidelines providing 
     further information, budgetary levels and amounts, and other 
     explanatory material to supplement the instructions included 
     in this concurrent resolution pursuant to section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and set forth in section 
     201.
       (b) Publication.--In the House, the chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget may cause the material prepared pursuant to 
     subsection (a) to be printed in the Congressional Record on 
     the appropriate date, but not later than the date set forth 
     in this title on which committees must submit their 
     recommendations to the Committee on the Budget in order to 
     comply with the reconciliation instructions set forth in 
     section 201.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

     SEC. 301. SUBMISSIONS OF FINDINGS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

       (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, 
     Fraud, and Abuse.--In the House, not later than October 1, 
     2015, the committees named in subsection (d) shall submit to 
     the Committee on the Budget findings that identify changes in 
     law within their jurisdictions that would achieve the 
     specified level of savings through the elimination of waste, 
     fraud, and abuse.
       (b) Recommendations Submitted.--After receiving those 
     recommendations --
       (1) the Committee on the Budget may use them in the 
     development of future concurrent resolutions on the budget; 
     and
       (2) the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     shall make such recommendations publicly available in 
     electronic form and cause them to be placed in the 
     Congressional Record not later than 30 days after receipt.
       (c) Specified Levels of Savings.--For purposes of this 
     section, a specified level of savings for each committee may 
     be inserted in the Congressional Record by the chair of the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (d) House Committees.--The following committees shall 
     submit findings to the Committee on the Budget of the House 
     of Representatives pursuant to subsection (a): the Committee 
     on Agriculture, the Committee on Armed Services, the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, the Committee on House Administration, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, the Committee on Natural Resources, the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on 
     Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       (e) Report by the Government Accountability Office.--By 
     August 1, 2015, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives a 
     comprehensive report identifying instances in which the 
     committees referred to in subsection (d) may make legislative 
     changes to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 
     of programs within their jurisdiction.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 401. COST ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR LEGISLATION TO INCORPORATE 
                   MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS.

       (a) CBO Estimates.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, an estimate provided by the Congressional 
     Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 for any major legislation considered in the House 
     or the Senate during fiscal year 2016 shall, to the extent 
     practicable, incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in 
     economic output, employment, capital stock, and other 
     macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.
       (b) Joint Committee on Taxation Estimates.--For purposes of 
     the enforcement of this concurrent resolution, any estimate 
     provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation to the Director 
     of the Congressional Budget Office under section 201(f) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major 
     legislation shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the 
     budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, 
     capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting 
     from such legislation.
       (c) Contents.--Any estimate referred to in this section 
     shall, to the extent practicable, include--
       (1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects 
     (including macroeconomic variables described in subsections 
     (a) and (b)) of such legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
     beginning after the last fiscal year of this concurrent 
     resolution sets forth budgetary levels required by section 
     301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the 
     source of data underlying that estimate.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``major legislation'' means any bill or joint 
     resolution--
       (A) for which an estimate is required to be prepared 
     pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 and that causes a gross budgetary effect (before 
     incorporating macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year over 
     the years of the most recently agreed to concurrent 
     resolution on the budget equal to or greater than 0.25 
     percent of the current projected gross domestic product of 
     the United States for that fiscal year; or
       (B) designated as such by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget for all direct spending legislation other than revenue 
     legislation or the Member who is chair or vice chair, as 
     applicable, of the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue 
     legislation; and
       (2) the term ``budgetary effects'' means changes in 
     revenues, budget authority, outlays, and deficits.

     SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON MEASURES AFFECTING SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   SOLVENCY.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of 
     fiscal year 2016, it shall not be in order to consider in the 
     House or the Senate a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that reduces 
     the actuarial balance by at least .01 percent of the present 
     value of future taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance Trust Fund established under section 
     201(a) of the Social Security Act for the 75-year period 
     utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board of 
     Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a measure 
     that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined 
     balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 
     75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of 
     the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 403. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       (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 enforcing 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 
     discretionary amounts described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 404. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF 
                   THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

       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. 405. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in 
     subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts identified in 
     the report to accompany this concurrent resolution or the 
     joint explanatory statement of managers to accompany this 
     concurrent resolution under the heading:
       (1) General.--``Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''; and
       (2) Veterans.--``Veterans Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--The aggregate level of advance 
     appropriations shall not exceed--
       (1) General.--$28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     all programs identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1); and
       (2) Veterans.--$63,271,000,000 in new budget authority for 
     programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs identified 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
       (d) Definition.--The term ``advance appropriation'' means 
     any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or 
     joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, making general appropriations or continuing 
     appropriations, for the fiscal year following fiscal year 
     2016.

     SEC. 406. FAIR VALUE CREDIT ESTIMATES.

       (a) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or 
     ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate 
     of the budgetary effects of a measure prepared by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget

[[Page H2004]]

     Office under the terms of title V of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, ``credit reform'' shall, as a supplement to such 
     estimate, and 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.
       (b) Fair Value Estimates for Housing and Student Loan 
     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 budgetary effects 
     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 budgetary effect related to a housing, 
     residential mortgage or student loan program under title V of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 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 effect.
       (c) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a) 
     or (b), 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. 407. 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 in the fiscal year following the last 
     fiscal year of this concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 408. ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
                   GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Separate OCO/GWOT Allocation.--In the House, there 
     shall be a separate allocation of new budget authority and 
     outlays provided to the Committee on Appropriations for the 
     purposes of Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism.
       (b) Application.--For purposes of enforcing the separate 
     allocation referred to in subsection (a) 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 2016. Section 302(c) of such Act shall 
     not apply to such separate allocation.
       (c) Designations.--New budget authority or outlays counting 
     toward the allocation established by subsection (a) shall be 
     designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (d) Adjustments.--For purposes of subsection (a) for fiscal 
     year 2016, 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. 409. ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVED CONTROL OF BUDGETARY 
                   RESOURCES.

       (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending 
     Levels.--In the House, if a committee (other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or offers any amendment thereto or submits a 
     conference report thereon, providing for a decrease in direct 
     spending (budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for 
     any fiscal year and also provides for an authorization of 
     appropriations for the same purpose, upon the enactment of 
     such measure, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     decrease the allocation to such committee and increase the 
     allocation of discretionary spending (budget authority and 
     outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on Appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2016 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) Determinations.--In the House, for the purpose of 
     enforcing this concurrent resolution, the allocations and 
     aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct 
     spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and 
     surpluses for fiscal year 2016 and the period of fiscal years 
     2016 through fiscal year 2025 shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on the 
     Budget and such chair may adjust applicable levels of this 
     concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 410. CONCEPTS, AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS AND APPLICATION.

       (a) Concepts, Allocations, and Application.--In the House--
       (1) upon a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution accordingly;
       (2) any adjustments of the allocations, aggregates, and 
     other budgetary levels made pursuant to this concurrent 
     resolution shall--
       (A) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (B) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (C) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable;
       (3) section 202 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) shall 
     have no force or effect for any reconciliation bill reported 
     pursuant to instructions set forth in this concurrent 
     resolution;
       (4) the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary 
     levels to reflect changes resulting from the most recently 
     published or adjusted baseline of the Congressional Budget 
     Office; and
       (5) the term ``budget year'' means the most recent fiscal 
     year for which a concurrent resolution on the budget has been 
     adopted.
       (b) Aggregates, Allocations and Application.--In the House, 
     for purposes of this concurrent resolution and budget 
     enforcement--
       (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 budgetary 
     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 407 of this 
     concurrent resolution; and
       (2) 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.

     SEC. 411. 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 V--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 501. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   HEALTH CARE LAW.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that consists solely of the 
     full repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the health care-
     related provisions of the Health Care and Education 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 or measures that make 
     modifications to such law.

     SEC. 502. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROMOTING REAL 
                   HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that promotes real health care 
     reform, if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 503. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE 
                   MEDICARE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH 
                   CARE LAW.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     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 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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 504. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure extends the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 505. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, expands access to, and 
     improves, as determined by such chair, graduate medical 
     education programs, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     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 budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution reported by the 
     Committee on Ways and

[[Page H2005]]

     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 
     2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 507. 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 budgetary 
     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 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 508. 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 budgetary 
     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 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 509. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE POVERTY AND 
                   INCREASE OPPORTUNITY AND UPWARD MOBILITY.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms policies and programs to 
     reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward mobility, 
     but only if such measure would neither adversely impact job 
     creation nor increase the deficit over the period of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 510. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure maintains the solvency of the 
     Highway Trust Fund, but only if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
     through 2025.

     SEC. 511. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FEDERAL RETIREMENT 
                   REFORM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, if such measure reforms, improves and updates the 
     Federal retirement system, as determined by such chair, but 
     only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

     SEC. 512. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFENSE SEQUESTER 
                   REPLACEMENT.

       The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
     concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure supports the following activities: Department of 
     Defense training and maintenance associated with combat 
     readiness, modernization of equipment, auditability of 
     financial statements, or military compensation and benefit 
     reforms, by the amount provided for these purposes, but only 
     if such measure would not increase the deficit (without 
     counting any net revenue increases in that measure) over the 
     period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 601. 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 2016 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2016 is 4.6 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending:
       (A) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a Democratic 
     president reformed welfare by limiting the duration of 
     benefits, giving States more control over the program, and 
     helping recipients find work. In the five years following 
     passage, child-poverty rates fell, welfare caseloads fell, 
     and workers' wages increased. This budget applies the lessons 
     of welfare reform to both the Supplemental Nutrition 
     Assistance Program and Medicaid.
       (B) For Medicaid, this budget assumes the conversion of the 
     Federal share of Medicaid spending into flexible State 
     allotments, which States will be able to tailor to meet their 
     unique needs. Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-
     fits-all approach that ties the hands of State governments 
     and would provide States with the freedom and flexibility 
     they have long requested in the Medicaid program. Moreover, 
     this budget assumes the repeal of the Medicaid expansions in 
     the President's health care law, relieving State governments 
     of the crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates, as 
     well as the overwhelming pressure the law's Medicaid 
     expansion puts on an already-strained system.
       (C) For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this 
     budget assumes the conversion of the program into a flexible 
     State allotment tailored to meet each State's needs. The 
     allotment would increase based on the Department of 
     Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan index and beneficiary growth. 
     Such a reform would provide incentives for States to ensure 
     dollars will go towards those who need them most.
       (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 2016 is 5.4 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 2016 is 5.5 
     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. Future retirees would be able to 
     choose from a range of guaranteed coverage options, with 
     private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-
     service Medicare program. Medicare would provide a premium-
     support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of 
     the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost. 
     The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so 
     that the sick would receive higher payments if their 
     conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive 
     additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and 
     wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater 
     share of their premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how 
     their health care dollars are spent will force providers to 
     compete against each other on price and quality. This market 
     competition will act as a real check on widespread waste and 
     skyrocketing health care costs. As with previous budgets, 
     this program will begin in 2024 and makes no changes to those 
     in or near retirement.
       (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 VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

     SEC. 701. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

       The following are the recommended revenue, spending, and 
     deficit levels for each of fiscal years 2030, 2035, and 2040 
     as a percent of the gross domestic product of the United 
     States:
       (1) Revenues.--The budgetary levels of Federal revenues are 
     as follows:
       Fiscal year 2030: 18.7 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 19.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 19.0 percent.
       (2) Outlays.--The budgetary levels of total budget outlays 
     are not to exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: 18.4 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 17.8 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 16.9 percent.
       (3) Deficits.--The budgetary levels of deficits are not to 
     exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: -0.3 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: -1.2 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: -2.1 percent.
       (4) Debt.--The budgetary levels of debt held by the public 
     are not to exceed:
       Fiscal year 2030: 44.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2035: 32.0 percent.
       Fiscal year 2040: 18.0 percent.

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

     SEC. 801. POLICY STATEMENT ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Federal Government collects approximately $3 
     trillion annually in taxes, but spends more than $3.5 
     trillion to maintain the operations of government. The 
     Federal Government must borrow 14 cents of every Federal 
     dollar spent.
       (2) At the end of the year 2014, the national debt of the 
     United States was more than $18.1 trillion.
       (3) A majority of States have petitioned the Federal 
     Government to hold a Constitutional Convention for the 
     consideration of adopting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
     United States Constitution.
       (4) Forty-nine States have fiscal limitations in their 
     State Constitutions, including the requirement to annually 
     balance the budget.
       (5) H.J. Res. 2, sponsored by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-
     VA), was considered by the House of Representatives on 
     November 18, 2011, though it received 262 aye votes, it did 
     not receive the two-thirds required for passage.
       (6) Numerous balanced budget amendment proposals have been 
     introduced on a bipartisan basis in the House. Twelve were 
     introduced in the 113th Congress alone, including H.J. Res. 4 
     by Democratic Representative John J. Barrow of Georgia, and 
     H.J. Res. 38 by Republican Representative Jackie Walorski of 
     Indiana.
       (7) The joint resolution providing for a balanced budget 
     amendment to the U.S. Constitution referred to in paragraph 
     (5) prohibited outlays for a fiscal year (except those

[[Page H2006]]

     for repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total 
     receipts for that fiscal year (except those derived from 
     borrowing) unless Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote 
     of each chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over 
     receipts.
       (8) In 1995, a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
     Constitution passed the House with bipartisan support, but 
     failed of passage by one vote in the United States Senate.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this resolution 
     that Congress should pass a joint resolution incorporating 
     the provisions set forth in subsection (b), and send such 
     joint resolution to the States for their approval, to amend 
     the Constitution of the United States to require an annual 
     balanced budget.

     SEC. 802. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET PROCESS AND BASELINE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) In 1974, after more than 50 years of executive 
     dominance over fiscal policy, Congress acted to reassert its 
     ``power of the purse'', and passed the Congressional Budget 
     and Impoundment Control Act.
       (2) The measure explicitly sought to establish 
     congressional control over the budget process, to provide for 
     annual congressional determination of the appropriate level 
     of taxes and spending, to set important national budget 
     priorities, and to find ways in which Members of Congress 
     could have access to the most accurate, objective, and 
     highest quality information to assist them in discharging 
     their duties.
       (3) Far from achieving its intended purpose, however, the 
     process has instituted a bias toward higher spending and 
     larger government. The behemoth of the Federal Government has 
     largely been financed through either borrowing or taking ever 
     greater amounts of the national income through high taxation.
       (4) The process does not treat programs and policies 
     consistently and shows a bias toward higher spending and 
     higher taxes.
       (5) It assumes extension of spending programs (of more than 
     $50 million per year) scheduled to expire.
       (6) Yet it does not assume the extension of tax policies in 
     the same way. consequently, extending existing tax policies 
     that may be scheduled to expire is characterized as a new tax 
     reduction, requiring offsets to ``pay for'' merely keeping 
     tax policy the same even though estimating conventions would 
     not require similar treatment of spending programs.
       (7) The original goals set for the congressional process 
     are admirable in their intent, but because the essential 
     mechanisms of the process have remained the same, and 
     ``reforms'' enacted over the past 40 years have largely taken 
     the form of layering greater levels of legal complexity 
     without reforming or reassessing the very fundamental nature 
     of the process.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget that as the primary branch of 
     Government, Congress must:
       (1) Restructure the fundamental procedures of budget 
     decision making;
       (2) Reassert Congress's ``power of the purse'', and 
     reinforce the balance of powers between Congress and the 
     President, as the 1974 Act intended.
       (3) Create greater incentives for lawmakers to do budgeting 
     as intended by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     especially adopting a budget resolution every year.
       (4) Encourage more effective control over spending, 
     especially currently uncontrolled direct spending.
       (5) Consider innovative fiscal tools such as: zero based 
     budgeting, which would require a department or agency to 
     justify its budget as if it were a new expenditure; and 
     direct spending caps to enhance oversight of automatic pilot 
     spending that increases each year without congressional 
     approval.
       (6) Promote efficient and timely budget actions, so that 
     lawmakers complete their budget actions by the time the new 
     fiscal year begins.
       (7) Provide access to the best analysis of economic 
     conditions available and increase awareness of how fiscal 
     policy directly impacts overall economic growth and job 
     creation,
       (9) Remove layers of complexity that have complicated the 
     procedures designed in 1974, and made budgeting more arcane 
     and opaque.
       (10) Remove existing biases that favor higher spending.
       (11) Include procedures by which current tax laws may be 
     extended and treated on a basis that is not different from 
     the extension of entitlement programs.
       (c) Budget Process Reform.--Comprehensive budget process 
     reform should also remove the bias in the baseline against 
     the extension of current tax laws in the following ways:
       (1) Permanent extension of tax laws should not be used as a 
     means to increase taxes on other taxpayers;
       (2) For those expiring tax provisions that are proposed to 
     be permanently extended, Congress should use a more realistic 
     baseline that does not require them to be offset; and,
       (3) Tax-reform legislation should not include tax increases 
     just to offset the extension of current tax laws.
       (d) Legislation.--The Committee on the Budget intends to 
     draft legislation during the 114th Congress that will rewrite 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     to fulfill the goals of making the congressional budget 
     process more effective in ensuring taxpayers' dollars are 
     spent wisely and efficiently.

     SEC. 803. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB 
                   CREATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Although the United States economy technically emerged 
     from recession more than 5 years ago, the subsequent recovery 
     has felt more like a malaise than a rebound. Real gross 
     domestic product GDP growth over the past 5 years has 
     averaged slightly more than 2 percent, well below the 3.2 
     percent historical trend rate of growth in the United States. 
     Although the economy has shown some welcome signs of 
     improvement of late, the Nation remains in the midst of the 
     weakest economic recovery of the modern era.
       (2) Looking ahead, CBO expects the economy to grow by an 
     average of just 2.3 percent over the next 10 years. That 
     level of economic growth is simply unacceptable and 
     insufficient to expand opportunities and the incomes of 
     millions of middle-income Americans.
       (3) Sluggish economic growth has also contributed to the 
     country's fiscal woes. Subpar growth means that revenue 
     levels are lower than they would otherwise be while 
     government spending (e.g. welfare and income-support 
     programs) is higher. Clearly, there is a dire need for 
     policies that will spark higher rates of economic growth and 
     greater, higher-quality job opportunities
       (4) Although job gains have been trending up of late, other 
     aspects of the labor market remain weak. The labor force 
     participation rate, for instance, is hovering just under 63 
     percent, close to the lowest level since 1978. Long-term 
     unemployment also remains a problem. Of the roughly 8.7 
     million people who are currently unemployed, 2.7 million 
     (more than 30 percent) have been unemployed for more than 6 
     months. Long-term unemployment erodes an individual's job 
     skills and detaches them from job opportunities. It also 
     undermines the long-term productive capacity of the economy.
       (5) Perhaps most important, wage gains and income growth 
     have been subpar for middle-class Americans. Average hourly 
     earnings of private-sector workers have increased by just 1.6 
     percent over the past year. Prior to the recession, average 
     hourly earnings were tracking close to 4 percent. Likewise, 
     average income levels have remained flat in recent years. 
     Real median household income is just under $52,000, one of 
     the lowest levels since 1995.
       (6) The unsustainable fiscal trajectory has cast a shadow 
     on the country's economic outlook. 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. This debt overhang, and the uncertainty it 
     generates, can weigh on growth, investment, and job creation.
       (7) Nearly all economists, including those at the CBO, 
     conclude that reducing budget deficits (thereby bending the 
     curve on debt levels is a net positive for economic growth 
     over time. The logic is that deficit reduction creates long-
     term economic benefits because it increases the pool of 
     national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising 
     economic growth and job creation.
       (8) CBO analyzed the House Republican fiscal year 2016 
     budget resolution and found it would increase real output per 
     capita (a proxy for a country's standard of living) by about 
     $1,000 in 2025 and roughly $5,000 by 2040 relative to the 
     baseline path. That means more income and greater prosperity 
     for all Americans.
       (9) In contrast, if the Government remains on the current 
     fiscal path, future generations will face ever-higher debt 
     service costs, a decline in national savings, and a 
     ``crowding out'' of private investment. This dynamic will 
     eventually lead to a decline in economic output and a 
     diminution in our country's standard of living.
       (10) The key economic challenge is determining how to 
     expand the economic pie, not how best to divide up and re-
     distribute a shrinking pie.
       (11) A stronger economy is vital to lowering deficit levels 
     and eventually balancing the budget. According to CBO, if 
     annual real GDP growth is just 0.1 percentage point higher 
     over the budget window, deficits would be reduced by $326 
     billion.
       (12) This budget resolution therefore embraces pro-growth 
     policies, such as fundamental tax reform, that will help 
     foster a stronger economy, greater opportunities and more job 
     creation.
       (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 will 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 helping the economy grow and expanding opportunity for all 
     Americans.

     SEC. 804. 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)

[[Page H2007]]

     economic growth. The United States tax code fails on all 
     three counts: It is notoriously complex, patently unfair, and 
     highly inefficient. The tax code's complexity distorts 
     decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to slower 
     economic growth, lower wages, and less job creation.
       (2) Over the past decade alone, there have been 4,107 
     changes to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of the 
     major changes over the years have involved carving out 
     special preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various 
     activities or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 
     trillion per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and 
     highly complex.
       (3) In addition, these tax preferences are 
     disproportionately used by upper-income individuals.
       (4) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the 
     code end up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base, in 
     turn, requires much higher tax rates to raise a given amount 
     of revenue.
       (5) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up spending 
     $160 billion and roughly 6 billion hours a year complying 
     with the tax code waste of time and resources that could be 
     used in more productive activities.
       (6) Standard economic theory shows that high marginal tax 
     rates dampen the incentives to work, save, and invest, which 
     reduces economic output and job creation. Lower economic 
     output, in turn, mutes the intended revenue gain from higher 
     marginal tax rates.
       (7) Roughly half of 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 can reach nearly 45 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 slightly more than 39 
     percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Tax 
     rates this high suppress wages and discourage investment and 
     job creation, distort business activity, and put American 
     businesses at a competitive disadvantage with foreign 
     competitors.
       (9) By deterring potential investment, the 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 United States firms 
     twice, putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage 
     with competitors with more competitive international tax 
     systems.
       (11) Reforming the United States tax code to a more 
     competitive international system would boost the 
     competitiveness of United States companies operating abroad 
     and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
       (12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers through 
     lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and on investors 
     in diminished returns.
       (13) Revenues have averaged about 17.4 percent of the 
     economy throughout modern American history. Revenues rise 
     above this level under current law to 18.3 percent of the 
     economy by the end of the 10-year budget window.
       (14) Attempting to raise revenue through new tax increases 
     to meet out-of-control spending would sink the economy and 
     Americans' ability to save for their retirement and their 
     children's education.
       (15) This resolution also rejects the idea of instituting a 
     carbon tax in the United States, which some have offered as a 
     new source of revenue. Such a plan would damage the economy, 
     cost jobs, and raise prices on American consumers.
       (16) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not 
     constitute fundamental tax reform.
       (17) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate 
     loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the 
     board not to fund more wasteful Government spending. 
     Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
       (18) Many economists believe that fundamental tax reform 
     (i.e. a broader tax base and lower tax rates) would lead to 
     greater labor supply and increased investment, which, over 
     time, would have a positive impact on total national output.
       (19) Heretofore, the congressional scorekeepers the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation (JCT).
       (20) Static scoring implicitly assumes that the size of the 
     economy (and therefore key economic variables such as labor 
     supply and investment) remains fixed throughout the 
     considered budget horizon. This is an abstraction from 
     reality.
       (21) A new House rule was adopted at the beginning of the 
     114th Congress to help correct this problem. This rule 
     requires CBO and JCT to incorporate the macroeconomic effects 
     of major legislation into their official cost estimates.
       (22) This rule seeks to bridge the divide between static 
     estimates and scoring that incorporates economic feedback 
     effects by providing policymakers with a greater amount of 
     information about the likely economic impact of policies 
     under their consideration while at the same time preserving 
     traditional scoring methods and reporting conventions.
       (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should enact legislation that 
     provides for a comprehensive reform of the United States tax 
     code to promote economic growth, create American jobs, 
     increase wages, and benefit American consumers, investors, 
     and workers through fundamental tax reform that--
       (1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to American 
     families and businesses and reduces the amount of time and 
     resources necessary to comply with tax laws;
       (2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals and 
     consolidates the current seven individual income tax brackets 
     into fewer brackets;
       (3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
       (4) reduces the corporate tax rate; and
       (5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive system 
     of international taxation in a manner that does not 
     discriminate against any particular type of income or 
     industry.

     SEC. 805. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Opening foreign markets to American exports is vital to 
     the United States economy and beneficial to American workers 
     and consumers. The Commerce Department estimates that every 
     $1 billion of United States exports supports more than 5,000 
     jobs here at home.
       (2) The United States can increase economic opportunities 
     for American workers and businesses through the expansion of 
     trade, adherence to trade agreement rules by the United 
     States and its trading partners, and the elimination of 
     foreign trade barriers to United States goods and services.
       (3) Trade Promotion Authority is a bipartisan and bicameral 
     effort to strengthen the role of Congress in setting 
     negotiating objectives for trade agreements, to improve 
     consultation with Congress by the Administration, and to 
     provide a clear framework for congressional consideration and 
     implementation of trade agreements.
       (4) Global trade and commerce is not a zero-sum game. The 
     idea that global expansion tends to ``hollow out'' United 
     States operations is incorrect. Foreign-affiliate activity 
     tends to complement, not substitute for, key parent 
     activities in the United States such as employment, worker 
     compensation, and capital investment. When United States 
     headquartered multinationals invest and expand operations 
     abroad it often leads to more jobs and economic growth at 
     home.
       (5) Trade agreements have saved the average American family 
     of four more than $10,000 per year, as a result of lower 
     duties. Trade agreements also lower the cost of manufacturing 
     inputs by removing duties.
       (6) American businesses and workers have shown that, on a 
     level playing field, they can excel and surpass the 
     international competition.
       (7) When negotiating trade agreements, United States laws 
     on Intellectual Property (IP) protection should be used as a 
     benchmark for establishing global IP frameworks. Strong IP 
     protections have contributed significantly to the United 
     States status as a world leader in innovation across sectors, 
     including in the development of life-saving biologic 
     medicines. The data protections afforded to biologics in 
     United States law, including 12 years of data protection, 
     allow continued development of pioneering medicines to 
     benefit patients both in the United States and abroad. To 
     maintain the cycle of innovation and achieve truly 21st 
     century trade agreements, it is vital that our negotiators 
     insist on the highest standards for IP protections.
       (8) The status quo of the current tax code also undermines 
     the competitiveness of United States businesses and costs the 
     United States economy investment and jobs.
       (9) The United States currently has an antiquated system of 
     international taxation whereby United States multinationals 
     operating abroad pay both the foreign-country tax and United 
     States corporate taxes. They are essentially taxed twice. 
     This puts them at an obvious competitive disadvantage. A 
     modern and competitive international tax system would 
     facilitate global commerce for United States multinational 
     companies and would encourage foreign business investment and 
     job creation in the United States.
       (10) The ability to defer United States taxes on their 
     foreign operations, which some erroneously refer to as a 
     ``tax loophole,'' cushions this disadvantage to a certain 
     extent. Eliminating or restricting this provision (and others 
     like it) would harm United States competitiveness.
       (11) This budget resolution advocates fundamental tax 
     reform that would lower the United States corporate rate, now 
     the highest in the industrialized world, and switch to a more 
     competitive system of international taxation. This would make 
     the United States a much more attractive place to invest and 
     station business activity and would chip away at the 
     incentives for United States companies to keep their profits 
     overseas (because the United States corporate rate is so 
     high).

[[Page H2008]]

       (b) Policy on Trade.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
     resolution to pursue international trade, global commerce, 
     and a modern and competitive United States international tax 
     system to promote job creation in the United States. The 
     United States should continue to seek increased economic 
     opportunities for American workers and businesses through the 
     expansion of trade opportunities, adherence to trade 
     agreements and rules by the United States and its trading 
     partners, and the elimination of foreign trade barriers to 
     United States goods and services by opening new markets and 
     by enforcing United States rights. To that end, Congress 
     should pass Trade Promotion Authority to strengthen the role 
     of Congress in setting negotiating objectives for trade 
     agreements, to improve consultation with Congress by the 
     Administration, and to provide a clear framework for 
     congressional consideration and implementation of trade 
     agreements.

     SEC. 806. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, the 
     financial condition of Social Security becomes more 
     precarious and the threat to seniors and those receiving 
     Social Security disability benefits becomes more pronounced:
       (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be 
     exhausted and program revenues will be unable to pay 
     scheduled benefits.
       (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and Survivors and 
     Disability Trust Funds will be exhausted, and program 
     revenues will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 2033, 
     benefits will be cut nearly 23 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 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections 
     find that Social Security will run cash deficits of more than 
     $2 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 CBO, between 1970 and 2012, the 
     number of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled 
     workers and their dependent family members) has increased by 
     more than 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 20 percent in 2016, devastating 
     individuals who need assistance the most.
       (7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed on a 
     bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan 
     Commission'' which helped to address Social Security 
     shortfalls for more than a generation.
       (8) Americans deserve action by the President, the House, 
     and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social Security. It 
     is critical that bipartisan action be taken to address the 
     looming insolvency of Social Security. In this spirit, this 
     resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to find solutions 
     by requiring policymakers to ensure that Social Security 
     remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution 
     assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
       (1) If in any year the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual Trustees Report 
     determines that the 75-year actuarial balance of the Social 
     Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the annual balance of 
     the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th year is in 
     deficit, the Board of Trustees should, 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 1 December of the same calendar year in 
     which the Board of Trustees submit their recommendations, the 
     President should promptly submit implementing legislation to 
     both Houses of Congress including his recommendations 
     necessary to achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and 
     a positive annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority 
     Leader of the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House 
     should 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 should report a bill, which should be 
     considered by the full House or Senate under expedited 
     procedures.
       (4) Legislation submitted by the President should--
       (A) protect those in or near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who count on Social 
     Security the most, including those with disabilities and 
     survivors;
       (C) improve fairness for participants;
       (D) reduce the burden on, and provide certainty for, future 
     generations; and
       (E) secure the future of the Disability Insurance program 
     while addressing the needs of those with disabilities today 
     and improving the determination process.
       (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution that Congress and the President should enact 
     legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability 
     Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should 
     not raid the Social Security retirement system without 
     reforms to the Disability Insurance system. This resolution 
     assumes reform that--
       (1) ensure benefits continue to be paid to individuals with 
     disabilities and their family members who rely on them;
       (2) prevents a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut;
       (3) makes the Disability Insurance program work better; and
       (4) promotes opportunity for those trying to return to 
     work.
       (d) Policy on Social Security Solvency.--Any legislation 
     that Congress considers to improve the solvency of the 
     Disability Insurance trust fund also must improve the long-
     term solvency of the combined Old Age and Survivors 
     Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund.

     SEC. 807. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPEALING THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   HEALTH CARE LAW AND PROMOTING REAL HEALTH CARE 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The President's health care law put Washington's 
     priorities first, and not patients'. The Affordable Care Act 
     (ACA) has failed to reduce health care premiums as promised; 
     instead, the law mandated benefits and coverage levels, 
     denying patients the opportunity to choose the type of 
     coverage that best suits their health needs and driving up 
     health coverage costs. A typical family's health care 
     premiums were supposed to decline by $2,500 a year; instead, 
     according to the 2014 Employer Health Benefits Survey, health 
     care premiums have increased by 7 percent for individuals and 
     families since 2012.
       (2) The President pledged ``If you like your health care 
     plan, you can keep your health care plan.'' Instead, the 
     nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates 9 
     million Americans with employment-based health coverage will 
     lose those plans due to the President's health care law, 
     further limiting patient choice.
       (3) Then-Speaker of the House, Pelosi, said that the 
     President's health care law would create 4 million jobs over 
     the life of the law and almost 400,000 jobs immediately. 
     Instead, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
     reduction in hours worked due to Obamacare represents a 
     decline of about 2.0 to 2.5 million full-time equivalent 
     workers, compared with what would have occurred in the 
     absence of the law. The full impact on labor represents a 
     reduction in employment by 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent, while 
     additional studies show less modest results. A recent study 
     by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimates 
     that Obamacare will reduce employment by up to 3 percent, or 
     about 4 million full-time equivalent workers.
       (4) The President has charged the Independent Payment 
     Advisory Board, a panel of unelected bureaucrats, with 
     cutting Medicare by an additional $20.9 billion over the next 
     ten years, according to the President's most recent budget.
       (5) Since ACA was signed into law, the administration has 
     repeatedly failed to implement it as written. The President 
     has unilaterally acted to make a total of 28 changes, delays, 
     and exemptions. The President has signed into law another 17 
     changes made by Congress. The Supreme Court struck down the 
     forced expansion of Medicaid; ruled the individual 
     ``mandate'' could only be characterized as a tax to remain 
     constitutional; and rejected the requirement that closely 
     held companies provide health insurance to their employees if 
     doing so violates these companies' religious beliefs. Even 
     now, almost five years after enactment, the Supreme Court 
     continues to evaluate the legality of how the President's 
     administration has implemented the law. All of these changes 
     prove the folly underlying the entire program health care in 
     the United States cannot be run from a centralized 
     bureaucracy.
       (6) The President's health care law is unaffordable, 
     intrusive, overreaching, destructive, and unworkable. The law 
     should be fully repealed, allowing for real, patient-centered 
     health care reform: the development of real health care 
     reforms that puts

[[Page H2009]]

     patients first, that make affordable, quality health care 
     available to all Americans, and that build on the innovation 
     and creativity of all the participants in the health care 
     sector.
       (b) Policy on Promoting Real Health Care Reform.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that the President's health care 
     law should be fully repealed and real health care reform 
     promoted in accordance with the following principles:
       (1) In general.--Health care reform should enhance 
     affordability, accessibility, quality, innovation, choices 
     and responsiveness in health care coverage for all Americans, 
     putting patients, families, and doctors in charge, not 
     Washington, DC. These reforms should encourage increased 
     competition and transparency. Under the President's health 
     care law, government controls Americans' health care choices. 
     Under true, patient-centered reform, Americans would.
       (2) Affordability.--Real reform should be centered on 
     ensuring that all Americans, no matter their age, income, or 
     health status, have the ability to afford health care 
     coverage. The health care delivery structure should be 
     improved, and individuals should not be priced out of the 
     health insurance market due to pre-existing conditions, but 
     nationalized health care is not only unnecessary to 
     accomplish this, it undermines the goal. Individuals should 
     be allowed to join together voluntarily to pool risk through 
     mechanisms such as Individual Membership Associations and 
     Small Employer Membership Associations.
       (3) Accessability.--Instead of Washington outlining for 
     Americans the ways they cannot use their health insurance, 
     reforms should make health coverage more portable. 
     Individuals should be able to own their insurance and have it 
     follow them in and out of jobs throughout their career. Small 
     business owners should be permitted to band together across 
     State lines through their membership in bona fide trade or 
     professional associations to purchase health coverage for 
     their families and employees at a low cost. This will 
     increase small businesses' bargaining power, volume 
     discounts, and administrative efficiencies while giving them 
     freedom from State-mandated benefit packages. Also, insurers 
     licensed to sell policies in one State should be permitted to 
     offer them to residents in any other State, and consumers 
     should be permitted to shop for health insurance across State 
     lines, as they are with other insurance products online, by 
     mail, by phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent.
       (4) Quality.--Incentives for providers to deliver high-
     quality, responsive, and coordinated care will promote 
     patient outcomes and drive down health care costs. likewise, 
     reforms that work to restore the patient-physician 
     relationship by reducing administrative burdens and allowing 
     physicians to do what they do best: care for patients
       (5) Choices.--Individuals and families should be free to 
     secure the health care coverage that best meets their needs, 
     rather than instituting one-size-fits-all directives from 
     Federal bureaucracies such as the Internal Revenue Service, 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
     Independent Payment Advisory Board.
       (6) Innovation.--Instead of stifling innovation in health 
     care technologies, treatments, medications, and therapies 
     with Federal mandates, taxes, and price controls, a reformed 
     health care system should encourage research, development and 
     innovation.
       (7) Responsiveness.--Reform should return authority to 
     States wherever possible to make the system more responsive 
     to patients and their needs. Instead of tying States' hands 
     with Federal requirements for their Medicaid programs, the 
     Federal Government should return control of this program to 
     the States. Not only does the current Medicaid program drive 
     up Federal debt and threaten to bankrupt State budgets, but 
     States are better positioned to provide quality, affordable 
     care to those who are eligible for the program and to track 
     down and weed out waste, fraud and abuse. Beneficiary choices 
     in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and 
     Medicaid should be improved. States should make available the 
     purchase of private insurance as an option to their Medicaid 
     and SCHIP populations (though they should not require 
     enrollment).
       (8) Reforms.--Reforms should be made to prevent lawsuit 
     abuse and curb the practice of defensive medicine, which are 
     significant drivers increasing health care costs. The burden 
     of proof in medical malpractice cases should be based on 
     compliance with best practice guidelines, and States should 
     be free to implement those policies to best suit their needs.

     SEC. 808. 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 
     Medicare Trustees Report--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2030 and unable to pay scheduled benefits;
       (B) Medicare enrollment is expected to increase by over 50 
     percent in the next two decades, as 10,000 baby boomers reach 
     retirement age each day;
       (C) enrollees remain in Medicare three times longer than at 
     the outset of the program;
       (D) current workers' payroll contributions pay for current 
     beneficiaries;
       (E) in 2013, the ratio was 3.2 workers per beneficiary, but 
     this falls to 2.3 in 2030 and continues to decrease over 
     time;
       (F) most Medicare beneficiaries receive about three dollars 
     in Medicare benefits for every one dollar paid into the 
     program; and
       (G) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy 
     and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6.5 
     percent per year over the next 10 years. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office's 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook, 
     spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent of gross 
     domestic product (GDP) by 2043 and 9.3 percent of GDP by 
     2089.
       (3) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to preserve the program for those in or near 
     retirement and strengthen Medicare for future beneficiaries.
       (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) permanent reform of the sustainable growth rate is 
     responsibly accounted for to ensure physicians continue to 
     participate in the Medicare program and provide quality 
     health care for beneficiaries;
       (3) when future generations 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;
       (4) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-service as a 
     plan option;
       (5) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower 
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks; and
       (6) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
     Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

     SEC. 809. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAL DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, 
                   DELIVERY AND INNOVATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For decades, the Nation's commitment to the discovery, 
     development, and delivery of new treatments and cures has 
     made the United States the biomedical innovation capital of 
     the world, bringing life-saving drugs and devices to patients 
     and well over a million high-paying jobs to local 
     communities.
       (2) Thanks to the visionary and determined leadership of 
     innovators throughout America, including industry, academic 
     medical centers, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
     the United States has led the way in early discovery. The 
     United States leadership role is being threatened, however, 
     as other countries contribute more to basic research from 
     both public and private sources.
       (3) The Organisation for Economic Development and 
     Cooperation predicts that China, for example, will outspend 
     the United States in total research and development by the 
     end of the decade.
       (4) Federal policies should foster innovation in health 
     care, not stifle it. America should maintain its world 
     leadership in medical science by encouraging competitive 
     forces to work through the marketplace in delivering cures 
     and therapies to patients.
       (5) Too often the bureaucracy and red-tape in Washington 
     hold back medical innovation and prevent new lifesaving 
     treatments from reaching patients. This resolution recognizes 
     the valuable role of the NIH and the indispensable 
     contributions to medical research coming from outside 
     Washington.
       (6) America is the greatest, most innovative Nation on 
     Earth. Her people are innovators, entrepreneurs, visionaries, 
     and relentless builders of the future. Americans were 
     responsible for the first telephone, the first airplane, the 
     first computer, for putting the first man on the moon, for 
     creating the first vaccine for polio and for legions of other 
     scientific and medical breakthroughs that have improved and 
     prolonged human health and life for countless people in 
     America and around the world.
       (b) Policy on Medical Innovation.--
       (1) It is the policy of this resolution to support the 
     important work of medical innovators throughout the country, 
     including private-sector innovators, medical centers and the 
     National Institutes of Health.
       (2) At the same time, the budget calls for continued strong 
     funding for the agencies that engage in valuable research and 
     development, while also urging Washington to get out of the 
     way of researchers, discoverers and innovators all over the 
     country.

     SEC. 810. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY REFORM.

       (a) Findings.-- The House finds the following:
       (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job 
     creation and dampened the economy, slowing the Nation's 
     recovery from the economic recession.
       (2) Since President Obama's inauguration in 2009, the 
     administration has issued more than 468,500 pages of 
     regulations in the Federal Register including 70,066 pages in 
     2014.

[[Page H2010]]

       (3) The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the 
     total cost of regulations is as high as $2.03 trillion per 
     year. Since 2009, the White House has generated more than 
     $494 billion in regulatory activity, with an additional $87.6 
     billion in regulatory costs currently pending.
       (4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation (Public 
     Law 111-203) has resulted in more than $32 billion in 
     compliance costs and saddled job creators with more than 63 
     million hours of compliance paperwork.
       (5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to date has 
     added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance paperwork, 
     imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs on the private 
     sector and an $8 billion cost burden on the States.
       (6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations 
     are primarily targeted at the coal industry. In June 2014, 
     the EPA proposed a rule to cut carbon pollution from the 
     Nation's power plants. The proposed standards are 
     unachievable with current commercially available technology, 
     resulting in a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power plants.
       (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly 40 percent of 
     the United States electricity at a low cost. Unfairly 
     targeting the coal industry with costly and unachievable 
     regulations will increase energy prices, disproportionately 
     disadvantaging energy-intensive industries like manufacturing 
     and construction, and will make life more difficult for 
     millions of low-income and middle class families already 
     struggling to pay their bills.
       (8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being retired 
     or converted as a result of EPA regulations. Combined with 
     the de-facto prohibition on new plants, these retirements and 
     conversions may further increase the cost of electricity.
       (9) A recent study by the energy market analysis group 
     Energy Ventures Analysis Inc. estimates the average energy 
     bill in West Virginia will rise $750 per household by 2020, 
     due in part to EPA regulations. West Virginia receives 95 
     percent of its electricity from coal.
       (10) The Heritage Foundation found that a phase-out of coal 
     would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 2023, resulting in an 
     aggregate gross domestic product decrease of $2.23 trillion 
     over the entire period and reducing the income of a family of 
     four by $1,200 per year. Of these jobs, 330,000 will come 
     from the manufacturing sector, with California, Texas, Ohio, 
     Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, North 
     Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the highest job 
     losses.
       (b) Policy on Federal Regulatory Reform.--It is the policy 
     of this resolution that Congress should, in consultation with 
     the public burdened by excessive regulation, enact 
     legislation that--
       (1) promotes economic growth and job creation by 
     eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and 
     simplifying Federal regulations;
       (2) requires the implementation of a regulatory budget to 
     be allocated amongst Government agencies, which would require 
     congressional approval and limit the maximum costs of 
     regulations in a given year;
       (3) requires congressional approval of all new major 
     regulations (those with an impact of $100 million or more) 
     before enactment as opposed to current law in which Congress 
     must expressly disapprove of regulation to prevent it from 
     becoming law, which would keep Congress engaged as to pending 
     regulatory policy and prevent costly and unsound policies 
     from being implemented and becoming effective;
       (4) requires a three year retrospective cost-benefit 
     analysis of all new major regulations, to ensure that 
     regulations operate as intended;
       (5) reinforces the requirement of regulatory impact 
     analysis for regulations proposed by executive branch 
     agencies but also expands the requirement to independent 
     agencies so that by law they consider the costs and benefits 
     of proposed regulations rather than merely being encouraged 
     to do so as is current practice; and
       (6) requires a formal rulemaking process for all major 
     regulations, which would increase transparency over the 
     process and allow interested parties to communicate their 
     views on proposed legislation to agency officials.

     SEC. 811. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE 
                   DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings on Higher Education.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) A well-educated workforce is critical to economic, job, 
     and wage growth.
       (2) Roughly 20 million students are enrolled in American 
     colleges and universities.
       (3) Over the past decade, tuition and fees have been 
     growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2004-2005 
     Academic Year and the 2014-2015 Academic Year--
       (A) published tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 3.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation;
       (B) published tuition and fees at public two-year colleges 
     and universities increased at an average rate of 2.5 percent 
     per year above the rate of inflation; and
       (C) published tuition and fees at private nonprofit 4-year 
     colleges and universities increased at an average rate of 2.2 
     percent per year above the rate of inflation.
       (4) Federal financial aid for higher education has also 
     seen a dramatic increase. The portion of the Federal student 
     aid portfolio composed of Direct Loans, Federal Family 
     Education Loans, and Perkins Loans with outstanding balances 
     grew by 119 percent between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 
     2014.
       (5) This spending has failed to make college more 
     affordable.
       (6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama 
     noted: ``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 now stands at nearly $1.2 
     trillion. This makes student loans the second largest balance 
     of consumer debt, 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 2017 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 
     $5,775 in each year of the budget window; and
       (4) removing regulatory barriers in higher education that 
     act to restrict flexibility and innovative teaching, 
     particularly as it relates to non-traditional models such as 
     online coursework and competency-based learning.
       (c) Findings on Workforce Development.--The House finds the 
     following:
       (1) 8.7 million Americans are currently unemployed.
       (2) Despite billions of dollars in spending, those looking 
     for work are stymied by a broken workforce development system 
     that fails to connect workers with assistance and employers 
     with trained personnel.
       (3) The House Education and Workforce Committee 
     successfully consolidated 15 job training programs in the 
     recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
       (d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution to address the failings in the current 
     workforce development system, by--
       (1) further streamlining and consolidating Federal job 
     training programs; and
       (2) empowering states with the flexibility to tailor 
     funding and programs to the specific needs of their 
     workforce, including the development of career scholarships.

     SEC. 812. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) For years, there has been serious concern regarding the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bureaucratic 
     mismanagement and continuous failure to provide veterans 
     timely access to health care and benefits.
       (2) In 2014, reports started breaking across the Nation 
     that VA medical centers were manipulating wait-list documents 
     to hide long delays veterans were facing to receive health 
     care. The VA hospital scandal led to the immediate 
     resignation of then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. 
     Shinseki.
       (3) In 2015, for the first time ever, VA health care was 
     added to the ``high-risk'' list of the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO), due to management and oversight 
     failures that have directly resulted in risks to the 
     timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and quality of health care.
       (4) In response to the scandal, the House Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs held several oversight hearings and 
     ultimately enacted the Veterans' Access, Choice and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (VACAA) (Public Law 113-146) to 
     address these problems. VACAA provided $15 billion in 
     emergency resources to fund internal health care needs within 
     the department and provided veterans enhanced access to 
     private-sector health care under the new Veterans Choice 
     Program.
       (b) Policy on the Department of Veterans Affairs.--This 
     budget supports the continued oversight efforts by the House 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs to ensure the VA is not only 
     transparent and accountable, but also successful in achieving 
     its goals in providing timely health care and benefits to 
     America's veterans. The Budget Committee will continue to 
     closely monitor the VA's progress to ensure resources 
     provided by Congress are sufficient and efficiently used to 
     provide needed benefits and services to veterans.

     SEC. 813. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL ACCOUNTING 
                   METHODOLOGIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Given the thousands of Federal programs and trillions 
     of dollars the Federal Government spends each year, assessing 
     and accounting for Federal fiscal activities and liabilities 
     is a complex undertaking.
       (2) Current methods of accounting leave much to be desired 
     in capturing the full

[[Page H2011]]

     scope of government and in presenting information in a clear 
     and compelling way that illuminates the best options going 
     forward.
       (3) Most fiscal analysis produced by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) is conducted over a relatively short time 
     horizon: 10 or 25 years. While this time frame is useful for 
     most purposes, it fails to consider the fiscal consequences 
     over the longer term.
       (4) Additionally, current accounting methodology does not 
     provide an analysis of how the Federal Government's fiscal 
     situation over the long run affects Americans of various age 
     cohorts.
       (5) Another consideration is how Federal programs should be 
     accounted for. The ``accrual method'' of accounting records 
     revenue when it is earned and expenses when they are 
     incurred, while the ``cash method'' records revenue and 
     expenses when cash is actually paid or received.
       (6) The Federal budget accounts for most programs using 
     cash accounting. Some programs, however, particularly loan 
     and loan guarantee programs, are accounted for using accrual 
     methods.
       (7) GAO has indicated that accrual accounting may provide a 
     more accurate estimation of the Federal Government's 
     liabilities than cash accounting for some programs 
     specifically those that provide some form of insurance.
       (8) Where accrual accounting is used, it is almost 
     exclusively calculated by CBO according to the methodology 
     outlined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). CBO 
     uses fair value methodology instead of FCRA to measure the 
     cost of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example.
       (9) FCRA methodology, however, understates the risk and 
     thus the true cost of Federal programs. An alternative is 
     fair value methodology, which uses discount rates that 
     incorporate the risk inherent to the type of liability being 
     estimated in addition to Treasury discount rates of the 
     proper maturity length.
       (10) The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that 
     ``adopting a fair-value approach would provide a more 
     comprehensive way to measure the costs of Federal credit 
     programs and would permit more level comparisons between 
     those costs and the costs of other forms of federal 
     assistance'' than the current approach under FCRA.
       (b) Policy on Federal Accounting Methodologies.--It is the 
     policy of this resolution that Congress should, in 
     consultation with the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     public affected by Federal budgetary choices, adopt 
     Governmentwide reforms of budget and accounting practices so 
     the American people and their representatives can more 
     readily understand the fiscal situation of the Government of 
     the United States and the options best suited to improving 
     it. Such reforms may include but should not be limited to the 
     following:
       (1) Providing additional metrics to enhance our current 
     analysis by considering our fiscal situation comprehensively, 
     over an extended time horizon, and as it affects Americans of 
     various age cohorts.
       (2) Expanding the use of accrual accounting where 
     appropriate.
       (3) Accounting for certain Federal credit programs using 
     fair value accounting as opposed to the current approach 
     under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

     SEC. 814. POLICY STATEMENT ON SCOREKEEPING FOR OUTYEAR 
                   BUDGETARY EFFECTS IN APPROPRIATION ACTS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     directs the Committee on the Budget to provide an allocation 
     of budgetary resources to the Committee on Appropriations for 
     the budget year covered by a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       (2) The allocation of budgetary resources provided by the 
     Committee on the Budget to the Committee on Appropriations 
     covers a period of one fiscal year only, which is effective 
     for the budget year.
       (3) An appropriation Act, joint resolution, amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon may contain changes to 
     programs that result in direct budgetary effects that occur 
     beyond the budget year and beyond the period for which the 
     allocation of budgetary resources provided by the Committee 
     on the Budget is effective.
       (4) The allocation of budgetary resources provided to the 
     Committee on Appropriations does not currently anticipate or 
     capture direct outyear budgetary effects to programs.
       (5) Budget enforcement could be improved by capturing the 
     direct outyear budgetary effects caused by appropriation Acts 
     and using this information to determine the appropriate 
     allocations of budgetary resources to the Committee on 
     Appropriations when considering future concurrent resolutions 
     on the budget.
       (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of the House of 
     Representatives to more effectively allocate budgetary 
     resources and accurately enforce budget targets by agreeing 
     to a procedure by which the Committee on the Budget should 
     consider the direct outyear budgetary effects of changes to 
     mandatory programs enacted in appropriations bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments thereto or conference reports thereon 
     when setting the allocation of budgetary resources for the 
     Committee on Appropriations in a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget. The relevant committees of jurisdiction are directed 
     to consult on a procedure during fiscal year 2016 and include 
     recommendations for implementing such procedure in the fiscal 
     year 2017 concurrent resolution on the budget.

     SEC. 815. POLICY STATEMENT ON REDUCING UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, 
                   AND UNAUTHORIZED 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 its report to Congress on Government Efficiency and 
     Effectiveness, the Comptroller General has stated that 
     addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs could ``lead to tens of billions of dollars 
     of additional savings.''
       (3) In 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 the GAO issued reports 
     showing excessive duplication and redundancy in Federal 
     programs including--
       (A) two hundred nine Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics education programs in 13 different Federal 
     agencies at a cost of $3 billion annually;
       (B) two hundred separate Department of Justice crime 
     prevention and victim services grant programs with an annual 
     cost of $3.9 billion in 2010;
       (C) twenty 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) seventeen separate Homeland Security preparedness grant 
     programs that spent $37 billion between fiscal year 2011 and 
     2012;
       (E) fourteen grant and loan programs, and three tax 
     benefits to reduce diesel emissions;
       (F) ninety-four different initiatives run by 11 different 
     agencies to encourage ``green building'' in the private 
     sector; and
       (G) twenty-three agencies implemented approximately 670 
     renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of 
     nearly $15 billion.
       (4) The Federal Government spends more than $80 billion 
     each year for approximately 1,400 information technology 
     investments. GAO has identified broad acquisition failures, 
     waste, and unnecessary duplication in the Government's 
     information technology infrastructure. experts have estimated 
     that eliminating these problems could save 25 percent or $20 
     billion.
       (5) GAO has identified strategic sourcing as a potential 
     source of spending reductions. In 2011 GAO estimated that 
     saving 10 percent of the total or all Federal procurement 
     could generate more than $50 billion in savings annually.
       (6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $106 billion in 
     improper payments in fiscal year 2013.
       (7) Under clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least 
     one hearing during each 120 day period following its 
     establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in 
     Government programs.
       (8) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal 
     year 2015, 32 laws will expire, possibly resulting in $693 
     billion in unauthorized appropriations. Timely 
     reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of 
     program justification and effectiveness.
       (9) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs should result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy on Reducing Unnecessary, Wasteful, and 
     Unauthorized Spending.--
       (1) Each authorizing committee annually should 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.
       (2) Committees of jurisdiction should review all 
     unauthorized programs funded through annual appropriations to 
     determine if the programs are operating efficiently and 
     effectively.
       (3) Committees should reauthorize those programs that in 
     the committees' judgment should continue to receive funding.
       (4) For those programs not reauthorized by committees, the 
     House of Representatives should enforce the limitations on 
     funding such unauthorized programs in the House rules. If the 
     strictures of the rules are deemed to be too rapid in 
     prohibiting spending on unauthorized programs, then milder 
     measures should be adopted and enforced until a return to the 
     full prohibition of clause 2(a)(1) of rule XXI of the Rules 
     of the House.

     SEC. 816. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                   CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) According to the most recent estimate from the Office 
     of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were expected to 
     hold $844 billion in unobligated balances at the close of 
     fiscal year 2015.
       (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending 
     previously made available by Congress that remains available 
     for expenditure.
       (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

[[Page H2012]]

     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 canceling unobligated 
     balances of funds that are no longer needed.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
     Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees should 
     through their oversight activities identify and achieve 
     savings through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated 
     balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 
     Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under 
     programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national 
     security, and Treasury authority to finance the national 
     debt.
       (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of 
     the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, 
     and other appropriate agencies should continue to make it a 
     high priority to review unobligated balances and identify 
     savings for deficit reduction.

     SEC. 817. POLICY STATEMENT ON AGENCY FEES AND SPENDING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) A number of Federal agencies and organizations have 
     permanent authority to collect fees and other offsetting 
     collections and to spend these collected funds.
       (2) The total amount of offsetting fees and offsetting 
     collections is estimated by the Office of Management and 
     Budget to be $525 billion in fiscal year 2016.
       (3) Agency budget justifications are, in some cases, not 
     fully transparent about the amount of program activity funded 
     through offsetting collections or fees. This lack of 
     transparency prevents effective and accountable government.
       (b) Policy on Agency Fees and Spending.--It is the policy 
     of this resolution that Congress must reassert its 
     constitutional prerogative to control spending and conduct 
     oversight. To do so, Congress should enact legislation 
     requiring programs that are funded through fees, offsetting 
     receipts, or offsetting collections to be allocated new 
     budget authority annually. Such allocation may arise from--
       (1) legislation originating from the authorizing committee 
     of jurisdiction for the agency or program; or
       (2) fee and account specific allocations included in annual 
     appropriation Acts.

     SEC. 818. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF 
                   TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

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

     SEC. 819. POLICY STATEMENT ON ``NO BUDGET, NO PAY''.

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

     SEC. 820. POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Russian aggression, the growing threats of the Islamic 
     State of Iraq and the Levant in the Middle East, North Korean 
     and Iranian nuclear and missile programs, and continued 
     Chinese investments in high-end military capabilities and 
     cyber warfare shape the parameters of an increasingly complex 
     and challenging security environment.
       (2) All four current service chiefs testified that the 
     National Military Strategy could not be executed at 
     sequestration levels.
       (3) The independent and bipartisan National Defense Panel 
     conducted risk assessments of force structure changes 
     triggered by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) and 
     concluded that in addition to previous cuts to defense dating 
     back to 2009, the sequestration of defense discretionary 
     spending has ``caused significant shortfalls in U.S. military 
     readiness and both present and future capabilities''.
       (4) The President's fiscal year 2016 budget irresponsibly 
     ignores current law and requests a defense budget $38 billion 
     above the caps for rhetorical gain. By creating an 
     expectation of spending without a plan to avoid the BCA's 
     guaranteed sequester upon breaching of its caps, the White 
     House's proposal compounds the fiscal uncertainty that has 
     affected the military's ability to adequately plan for future 
     contingencies and make investments crucial for the Nation's 
     defense.
       (5) The President's budget proposes $1.8 trillion in tax 
     increases, in addition to the $1.7 trillion in tax hikes the 
     Administration has already imposed. The President's tax 
     increases would further burden economic growth and is not a 
     realistic source for offsets to fund defense sequester 
     replacement.
       (b) Policy on Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Funding.--
     In fiscal year 2015, the House-passed budget resolution 
     anticipated $566 billion for national defense in the 
     discretionary base budget for fiscal year 2016. With no 
     necessary statutory change yet provided by Congress, the BCA 
     statute would require limiting national defense discretionary 
     base funding to $523 billion in fiscal year 2016. However, in 
     total with $90 billion, the House Budget estimate for 
     Overseas Contingency Operations funding for the Department of 
     Defense, the fiscal year 2016 budget provides over $613 
     billion total for defense spending that is higher than the 
     President's budget request for the fiscal year. This 
     concurrent resolution provides $22 billion above the 
     President's Five Year Defense Plan and $151 billion above the 
     10-year totals. This would also be $387 billion above the 10-
     year total for current levels.
       (c) Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund.--(1) The 
     budget resolution recognizes the need to ensure robust 
     funding for national defense while maintaining overall fiscal 
     discipline. The budget resolution prioritizes our national 
     defense and the needs of the warfighter by providing needed 
     dollars through the creation of the ``Defense Readiness and 
     Modernization Fund''.
       (2) The Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund provides 
     the mechanism for Congress to responsibly allocate in a 
     deficit-neutral way the resources the military needs to 
     secure the safety and liberty of United States citizens from 
     threats at home and abroad. The Defense Readiness and 
     Modernization Fund will provide the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget of the House the ability to increase allocations 
     to support legislation that would provide for the Department 
     of Defense warfighting capabilities, modernization, a 
     temporary increase in end strength, training and maintenance 
     associated with combat readiness, activities to reach full 
     auditability of the Department of Defense's financial 
     statements, and implementation of military and compensation 
     reforms.
       (d) Sequester Replacement for National Defense.--This 
     concurrent resolution encourages an immediate reevaluation of 
     Federal Government priorities to maintain the strength of 
     America's national security posture. In identifying policies 
     to restructure and stabilize the Government's major 
     entitlement programs which, along with net interest, will 
     consume all Federal revenue in less than 20 years. The budget 
     also charts a course that can ensure the availability of 
     needed national security resources.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 163, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment labeled Price 2 is an important 
amendment, important substitute. It is important for our colleagues, it 
is important for the Members of this Chamber, and it is important for 
the American people to know the differences between this amendment and 
the substitute amendment that we just talked about.
  There are two changes in this amendment, two changes in this 
substitute. This is an important debate. The first change is that, in 
this substitute, we increase global war on terror spending from $94 
billion in fiscal year 2016 to $96 billion in 2016, an increase of $2 
billion in the global war on terror. The second change from the 
underlying resolution is that we remove the requirement for an offset 
of any of the funding in the global war on terror.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an absolutely vital substitute amendment so 
that the

[[Page H2013]]

House can work its will, so that the Members of the conference are able 
to stipulate and say what they believe is to be most appropriate. 
Regardless, the level of spending for defense is north of the 
President's. The level of spending for defense when you look at base 
spending and global war on terror spending is where it needs to be to 
assist our men and women in accomplishing the mission.
  So, significant changes, yes, but changes in a positive direction to 
be able to make certain that this House is able to adopt a budget, work 
with the Senate to come forward with a unified budget. So I am pleased 
to offer what has become known as Price 2.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is bad enough that the Republican budget uses games 
and gimmicks that would make Enron accountants blush with respect to 
their basic budget. It is not just me who says that. People, 
independent observers from all over the country have said that. USA 
Today is not a partisan newspaper. Here is what they said about the 
Republican budget quackery: But ``pretend'' is the operative word 
because the Republicans supposed path to balance is fanciful at best. 
That is USA Today.
  Now, why do they say that? They say that because Republicans claim in 
the ninth and tenth years of their budget that they have this balance, 
but their budget depends on revenue from the Affordable Care Act. That 
is the ObamaCare that they say they are repealing. It depends on 
savings from the Affordable Care Act. It assumes that the costs of the 
tax cuts that this body is enacting by the day--for corporations and 
very wealthy individuals, mostly--aren't happening; right? That is a 
whole different universe. In fact, as we heard today, they just passed, 
worked on a bill in the Committee on Ways and Means, they are marking 
it up, $280 billion more to the deficit for the benefit of 5,500 
American families, 75 percent of whom have $20 million-plus estates.
  So their budget accounting is all wrong. In my view, their priorities 
and values are all wrong, too. But that same phony accounting that they 
are using for their big budget, now they are doing it to the defense 
budget as well. They are pretending that we need more in the overseas 
contingency account than the military leadership says it needs. In 
fact, they have been here testifying, saying that that is the wrong way 
to go. And yes, last year, as I read earlier, Republicans said the same 
thing in the Committee on the Budget report. They said that doing what 
Republicans are doing in this amendment is a backdoor loophole that 
undermines the integrity of the budget process. I didn't write that. 
Former chairman of the Committee on the Budget Paul Ryan wrote that. So 
we have got budget quackery in the main part of the budget, and now we 
have got games with defense spending. That is just the beginning of the 
story because, despite all that quackery and not balancing, what they 
do is hit hard at working families in America.
  We have had this debate now over the last 2 days. The good news with 
the economy is things are getting better; more people are getting back 
to work. We have got a long way to go, but trends are good; yet people 
are working harder than ever and feel like they are running in place, 
and some falling behind, and this Republican budget just makes it 
harder on them. In fact, it eliminates the college tax deduction, gets 
rid of the bump-up in the child tax credit, and gets rid of all the 
Affordable Care tax credits that help people afford health care. In 
fact, the irony is they keep the parts of the Affordable Care Act that 
raise revenue and get rid of the parts of the Affordable Care Act that 
help people afford health insurance. What a deal.
  So it is an unfortunate day for the country, Mr. Chairman, and I 
think Members, when they look at this, will recognize that the 
Republican budget takes us in the wrong direction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for his leadership and for 
the hard work of his entire committee. When we talk about this budget 
that is on the floor, I rise in strong support of this budget that 
restores fiscal sanity back to Washington.
  If you talk about one of the greatest threats facing our Nation right 
now, it is the fact that out-of-control spending and the lack of 
ability to set priorities and make those tough decisions to get our 
economy moving again have held our economy back, and it has also held 
back the opportunities for so many young people that deserve the same 
opportunity to achieve the American Dream that we and every generation 
that has come before us have been able to achieve.

                              {time}  1715

  And so, Mr. Chairman, what is so important about this budget is not 
just the fact that we get back to balance within 10 years. Balancing 
the Federal budget--we can do it. We actually lay it out in this 
budget. But it is all of the underlying policies, the great reforms 
that have been so desperately needed by Washington for so long, 
actually confronting challenges facing our country in a way that puts 
us on a path to get the economy moving again.
  Let's talk about Medicare. Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy, Mr. 
Chairman. And what is so important with this budget is we actually lay 
out a plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy and strengthen it for 
future generations. That is in this budget.
  We repeal the President's health care law, ObamaCare, something that 
has cost millions of people the good health care they like. It caused 
doctors to leave the practice of medicine and killed jobs across this 
country.
  We lay out the process for tax reform. We lay out really good reforms 
that people have been asking Washington to make. These are things that 
families have been doing for years, sitting around the kitchen table, 
making the tough decisions to ultimately live within their means and 
make sure that they can go forward and provide better opportunities for 
their children. That is what this budget does.
  And let's contrast that, Mr. Chairman, to President Obama's budget. 
President Obama lays out a budget that never, ever gets to balance. And 
not only that, he adds another $2.1 trillion in new taxes, taxes that 
will kill economic growth even more and that will take jobs out of this 
country and ship them overseas.
  The President always talks about raising taxes on people as if it is 
the only way to balance the budget. I would think the President's 
budget, with those new taxes, would get to balance in 2 or 3 years. Yet 
his budget never gets to balance.
  We don't raise a dime in new taxes in our budget. We just empower 
American people again. We let families have control over their health 
care decisions again. And with that empowerment, we get to balance in 
less than 10 years.
  This is the direction we need to head for our country, Mr. Chairman. 
This is the reason we all came here to Washington, to tackle the big 
problems in a way that restores opportunities for all Americans.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have heard that, despite all these claims, the Republican budget 
doesn't balance. I just read from USA Today. They don't have a stake in 
this battle. They said it is ``fanciful at best.''
  And it is interesting that if that is the number one priority of our 
Republican colleagues, why is it they don't cut one single special 
interest tax break to help reduce the deficit? Not one.
  There are $1.4 trillion a year in what the Congressional Budget 
Office classifies as tax expenditures. These are tax breaks. That is 
$1.4 trillion a year. That is more than we spend on Social Security 
every year. It is more than we spend on Medicare and Medicaid combined 
every year. They don't cut a single one of those. Maybe it is because 
17 percent of those tax breaks go to the

[[Page H2014]]

top 1 percent of income earners. And this is in a budget where their 
whole economic theory is based on the idea we are going to cut tax 
rates for the folks at the very top.
  The Ways and Means Committee just added over $280 billion to the 
deficit--or is in the process of doing it--to help 5,500 American 
families. So they don't cut a single tax break. In fact, they are 
giving bigger ones to families with estates over $10 million, 75 
percent of whom have estates over $20 million. But they cut education. 
They don't fund the Veterans Administration at the level the President 
does this year. It is $1.9 billion less--$19 billion less than the 
President for the Veterans Administration over 10 years.
  And how about the folks that are working hard every day in our 
veterans hospitals, those nurses, Federal employees? How about the 
Border Control Agents? How about the FBI? How about the folks in the 
intelligence community who helped track down Obama bin Laden? How about 
all of them?
  You know what the big thank you to them is? They cut Federal employee 
pay by 5 percent. They don't want to do that in a straightforward 
manner either. Here is how they do it. They are going to require all 
those Federal employees to put about 5 percent more into their pension 
without increasing the pension by a penny. That is what they do.
  Thank you. Thank you to the folks who are taking care of veterans in 
those hospitals. Thank you to folks in the foreign service who are 
putting their lives at risk. A lot of those people in the foreign 
service have given their lives overseas for this country.
  The big thank you from the Republican budget is not just no COLA. It 
is cut by 5\1/2\ percent, effectively, in a budget that doesn't cut a 
single tax break, where 17 percent of those tax breaks go to the folks 
at the very top, where a lot of those tax breaks are in this Tax Code 
because someone had a powerful lobbyist who got them a special break 
that is not available for other Americans.
  This budget is wrong for America, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, the misinformation and outright errors are 
phenomenal. The fact of the matter is the gentleman knows that it is 
the Ways and Means Committee that handles tax reform. It is not the 
Budget Committee. What we do is lay out a path to be able to allow the 
Ways and Means Committee to come up with a positive, pro-growth tax 
reform. That is the plan that is laid out in this budget.
  I would be so concerned about the gentleman's comments about getting 
to balance--I don't buy a thing that he is saying about our balance 
because we do get to balance within less than 10 years by reducing 
spending by $5.5 trillion. I would be concerned about his statements if 
I believed for one second that the other side thought that getting to 
balance was even important. The fact of the matter is that they don't. 
In fact, their budget never, ever, ever gets to balance, nor does the 
President's. So the crocodile tears that I see on the other side about 
us allegedly not getting to balance just is absolutely not credible.
  And what we request of Federal employees is that they be treated 
exactly like folks in the private sector. That is what the American 
people think is fair, appropriate treatment for all Americans, not 
favorite treatment, not picking winners and losers, like the other side 
enjoys doing.
  I am so proud now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, 
a gentleman with whom I have worked closely over these last 10 or 11 
weeks on this budget and for whom I have the utmost respect for his 
positive contributions to our Conference and to our Nation.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I want to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee 
not only for yielding, but for all of his work in putting this budget 
together.

  Mr. Chairman, I spent some time on the Budget Committee. Putting a 
budget together is never easy. And I believe that the committee has 
done excellent work in putting together a budget that, as the whip just 
described, helps increase economic opportunity for the whole country.
  I particularly appreciate the chairman as he has had to navigate 
through a variety of interests and a variety of concerns in putting 
that budget together.
  I know firsthand that Chairman Price and other members of the 
committee are very concerned about national security. And so I want to 
take a moment to explain why I believe the amendment we are considering 
now, Price 2, is better than Price 1 when it comes to national 
security. I think Members deserve that explanation.
  The amount of funding that the President has asked for our military 
this year ends up being $612 billion when you add the base and the 
overseas contingency account or the global war on terrorism account, 
whichever you want to call it. When you add them together, it is $612 
billion.
  All of our military leaders have testified that that is the lower 
ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country, and my opinion is 
that it would be rather reckless of us to ignore those warnings and do 
less. Now, I am for more than the lower ragged edge, but that is a base 
minimum, at least, that our military leaders have said is required.
  So if you look at Price 1, it has $613 billion. But the problem I 
have is that $20-something billion of that is conditional upon, first, 
the House and the Senate and President Obama reaching agreement on how 
to fund the reserve fund before the military can spend that money.
  Now, we have a track record here, and I am not at all convinced that 
President Obama really wants to find those savings. And if that 
happens, then that reserve fund is never funded, and we don't have the 
$20 billion.
  Price 2, on the other hand, fully funds that military up to that 
basic minimum level, and there is still a reserve fund.
  So, if there can be an agreement that reduces the deficit, I am for 
it. I have no doubt I will vote for it. But it doesn't make our 
equipping, training of our military dependent upon doing that first. 
And it just seems to me it would be hard to look a spouse or a parent 
in the eye and say: Oh, we can only train your son or daughter for the 
mission they are about to be sent on conditional upon this reserve fund 
being funded.
  Now, I think that there have been several misconceptions that are 
going around. Price 2, the budget before us, still balances in 10 
years. Removing that condition does not change that in any way.
  Our committee, the Armed Services Committee, is going to authorize 
the overseas contingency account just like we authorize the base 
account. And that is different from what happened before. But we are 
going to do it program by program, just like we do the base.
  So, some notion that there is a giant slush fund out there so the 
Pentagon can do what they want is just not true. It is going to be 
authorized and appropriated program by program just like the base 
budget is.
  I think Members ought to know that our committee, on a bipartisan 
basis, is absolutely committed to reforms to make sure that we all get 
value for the money we spend for everything in defense. The same is 
true on the other side of the Capitol as well.
  We hear that it would be better to put this money in the base--and 
that is right, it would be better--but the problem is the law of 
sequestration can't be fixed in a budget. We have got to live under the 
law as it is now.
  Now, I would like to change that law. I would like to remove the cap 
on defense spending because it turns out there is no cap on the dangers 
that we are facing around the world. But in the meantime, we have got 
to live under the law.
  The way to do that is to increase the OCO fund. And really, if we 
authorized and appropriated, it doesn't really matter what we call 
those funds. It still meets that minimum threshold that the President 
and the military leaders have said is necessary.
  Let me make one other point. I am concerned that the President is 
going to try to use defense spending as a hostage to force increased 
spending in other areas or higher taxes. And I think that we need to 
say right now that is absolutely wrong.

[[Page H2015]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. It is important for the House and it is especially 
important for the Commander in Chief to fully fund our military without 
conditions and not try to use it as leverage for other parts of his 
political agenda.
  I hope Members will vote for Price 2 and for the final budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman just recognized, this 
is a huge departure from the way this House of Representatives has 
dealt with our military spending in the past. In fact, it is a 
departure that the Republican-controlled Budget Committee said violated 
the integrity of the process.
  The Budget Committee specifically said it would oppose increases 
above the levels the administration and our military commanders say are 
needed to carry out operations. That is what the Budget Committee said 
last year--Republicans. This year, forget it. Just have some amnesia. 
Let's play games with our defense spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to an issue that has come up a couple 
of times during this debate regarding economic growth.
  As I said, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the 
Republican budget will actually slow down economic growth in the next 
couple of years. Just after we are regaining momentum, they are going 
to slow it down.
  The Congressional Budget Office said something else that is 
interesting. It says, as you look ahead over the next 10 years, the 
biggest single factor with respect to growth rates that don't keep up 
with the past averages are demographic changes; the fact that baby 
boomers are going to be retiring, and they are not going to be in the 
workforce. You just have to look at the CBO report from this budget 
year.
  So, you would think that one way to deal with that would be to pass 
immigration reform.

                              {time}  1730

  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that that will help 
spur economic growth. It will also help add to the solvency of Social 
Security because you will have more workers today supporting the baby 
boomers who are retiring over the next couple of years.
  If you really want a progrowth budget, you would support the 
Democratic approach that provides help to struggling families working 
every day, invest in our future by investing in our kids' education, 
and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
  There was a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate last year. Over 
here in the House, what happened to it? It is not that there was a vote 
on it and it went down. We never even had a vote here in this body on 
comprehensive immigration reform, one of the things that the budget 
pros and the economists say could help spur our economy in the years 
ahead, something that is supported by the Chamber of Commerce, as well 
as folks in the labor community.
  No, Republicans didn't want to do that. They didn't even allow a vote 
on that bill here in the House of Representatives. That would have been 
a progrowth effort, too.
  Mr. Chairman, instead of those progrowth efforts, efforts that will 
help shore up Social Security, all we get is the same old-same old, 
another budget that refuses to cut a single special interest tax break 
to help reduce the deficit, provides more tax breaks for folks at the 
top, and is based on a failed theory of top-down/trickle-down 
economics. We can do a lot better.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to what 
amount of time remains on each side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. 
McCarthy), the majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, especially to 
Chairman Price, for his work.
  Budgets are never easy. Lots of times, some don't even bring a budget 
to the floor, and I want to thank you for your work, and thank you to 
everybody else.
  Also, I know the work is hard on the other side of the aisle. I may 
not agree with your argument, and part of me feels sorry for you that 
nobody else in your conference is down here to even join you, but you 
are making the fight by yourself very strongly, and I thank the 
gentleman for that. This is a body to debate, and I thank you for 
filling the time.
  Today, the House will adopt a budget. A budget is a vision for the 
future, and Republicans are making our vision very clear. In our 
vision, Washington lives within its means. In our vision, we don't 
raise taxes on the American people. In our vision, we set the stage for 
a strong American future.
  Our vision looks to the road ahead, not to the rear view behind us. 
We face many challenges here at home and abroad, but we can tackle 
those challenges and create a more prosperous America if we choose a 
better path. This budget is a better path.
  Today, we look forward to a simpler and fairer tax code. Today, we 
look forward to an end of ObamaCare. Today, we look forward to saving 
our children and grandchildren from reckless spending by balancing the 
budget in less than 10 years. Today, we start growing America's 
economy, not Washington's. That is the big contrast between what the 
Republican and Democrats have to offer.
  You see, the Democrats continue to call for higher taxes, more 
spending, and more debt. In fact, the Democrats' budget has all the 
same tax increases that President Obama's budget has, but I want to 
give them credit--at least they actually submitted a budget this year.
  You see, it was only in 2010 when the Democrats became the very first 
majority party since the Budget Act of 1974 had passed, when they 
didn't even offer a budget here, when they were in the majority, let 
alone get one out of committee. I think the American public saw their 
vision and made a change in who was the majority after that.
  At least the President has actually submitted a budget every year, 
eventually; he did that, but just like the Democrats' budgets, none of 
the President's budgets even balanced. They didn't balance in 10; they 
didn't balance in 100 years.
  His budgets, the President's, Mr. Chairman, has been so bad that 
altogether, on this floor, he has only gotten two votes in the House 
for his entire Presidency. I understand why my friend on the other side 
of the aisle has more difficulty with those coming down to join him.
  While Republicans are attacking the debt seriously, the President and 
the congressional Democrats are not. Their budgets, in my view, are 
propaganda, not a path to the future. To get a better future, 
Republicans understand that we have to make tough choices, choices 
today to create opportunities for us tomorrow.
  You see, I believe the best days are in front of us. We are an 
exceptional nation. We are too strong and too good to ever be kept 
down. Sometimes, we might have leadership in the White House that 
doesn't want to make the tough choices, but Americans are remarkably 
resilient, and America will always be better than our faults.
  America is an idea, and as long as we have the wisdom to listen, but 
the courage to lead, that idea will never fail. I ask my Members to 
join with me, and I hope my talk today helped my friend on the other 
side get some others to join him.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, to the Republican leader, let me just 
say I think there is a lot of confusion on the Republican side. This is 
the first time since I have been on the Budget Committee that we have 
had two official Republican budgets on the floor of the House. That is 
a little bit of confusion here.
  I am really pleased to be joined by super-reinforcements, a 
gentlewoman who understands that we power our economy by making sure we 
have an economy that works for all people, not just folks at the very 
top; that economic growth is based on an economy where hard work 
translates into higher incomes for everybody; and that we have a tax 
system that rewards work,

[[Page H2016]]

not one riddled with tax breaks where 17 percent of those tax breaks 
goes to the top 1 percent.

  That is a tax code written by lobbyists. We want a tax code that is 
fair to the American people and the American worker.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
say with great pride how impressed all of us are by his statement of 
values that he has put forth in this House Democratic budget; the 
breadth of knowledge, the depth of commitment, the vision for a strong 
way to keep America number one.
  Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen, and thank you to members of the House 
Budget Committee.
  We say it all the time. A budget should be a statement of our values. 
What is important to us as a nation should be reflected in how we 
allocate our resources.
  Are we allocating them as investments in the future, the education of 
our children, the building of our infrastructure, to promote commerce, 
to protect the environment, to improve the quality of life of all 
Americans? Or is it a budget that subscribes to trickle-down economics 
of the Republican Party, which have never been successful for America's 
hard-working families?
  Instead, we have a budget that subscribes to what President Obama 
spoke about in the State of the Union Address: middle class economics. 
That is a better set of values to build a strong and prosperous future 
for America that is reflected in the House Democratic budget, but, as I 
said, this budget should be a statement of our values.
  And I just ask you, Mr. Chairman--I am allowed to ask our 
colleagues--is that correct, Mr. Chairman?--to address a comment?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holding). The gentlewoman's remarks must be 
addressed to the Chair.
  Ms. PELOSI. Okay. So you are the one, Mr. Chair.
  For you and for all you represent, I ask you: Do you think it is a 
statement of values of the American people to give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in our country while increasing taxes on the middle 
class by around $2,000?
  We don't begrudge the wealthy their success and their achievement; 
but why should people come forth and say we are going to balance our 
budget by giving tax increases to the middle class and tax decreases to 
the very wealthy?
  By the way, it doesn't balance the budget. The Republican budgets are 
not balanced.
  Is it a statement of value to end the boost in child tax credit; end 
higher education tax credit; freeze Pell grants for 10 years, thereby 
curbing the opportunity for people not only to reach their fulfillment, 
but for our country to be competitive and keep America number one?
  It is not just about personal aspirations. That would be reason 
enough. This is also about keeping America number one because we know 
that innovation begins in the classroom. If we want to have great 
innovation, we have to have access to education to many more people; 
then again, this budget--the Republican budget--does not invest in 
innovation in any way.
  Is it a statement of value to say to seniors we are now going to end 
your Medicare guarantee and focus on for you to pay more for preventive 
care and high prescription drug costs, instead of keeping what we have 
now--which is free preventive care for seniors--and reducing their 
prescription drug care?
  Infrastructure--the Republican budget abandons the Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure by cutting $187 billion, or more than 19 percent, from 
transportation funding over the coming decades. How could that be a 
statement of values when we are not building the infrastructure of our 
country?
  By the way, infrastructure and transportation have, in years past, 
not been partisan issues. This is the place where you come together 
because it made all the sense in the world to build the infrastructure 
of America, to know that no maintenance is the most expensive 
maintenance.
  Their bill, it is just stunning to see that, once again, the 
Republican budget repeals the Affordable Care Act. Now, mind you, the 
Affordable Care Act has nearly $1 trillion in savings. They take the 
savings and spend it on other things like tax cuts for the rich, but 
they repeal the bill. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I just 
don't understand how you can't see that that doesn't add up.
  This budget savages the investments needed to keep America number one 
in the global economy with even deeper cuts than the already 
devastating sequester.
  I know that, if you are sitting at home and watching this on TV, you 
are thinking: What does this mean to me?
  Well, what this means to you is that this is a budget that--our House 
Democratic budget works for hard-working Americans, making it easier to 
own a home, easier to send a child to college, easier to have a secure 
and enjoyable retirement. Even if your child does not want to go to 
college, you can enable your child to reach his or her aspirations 
because of your own financial security.
  For us to achieve a bright and durable future for our country, we 
must embrace the fact that financial security of our working families 
is both the measure and the engine of our Nation's success.
  Democrats are proud to offer a budget that grows opportunity, 
prosperity, and dignity for every American, not just the wealthy and 
the well connected.
  It is time for Republicans to abandon their fuzzy math and their 
broken priorities and come together with Democrats to pass a budget 
dedicated to the future of hard-working American families.

                              {time}  1745

  I think that is what we all came here to do, Democrats and 
Republicans, but you would never know it to see not one but two of the 
Republican budgets they have put forth today.
  That is why I am so proud of the work of the House Budget members on 
the Democratic side. That is why I commend the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) for his superior work on this subject and for having a 
budget that reflects the values of the American people for a brighter 
future.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, as Leader Pelosi just said, this really comes down to what 
vision you have for what has helped power our economy.
  The Republican theory of the case is that our economy is powered by 
providing tax rate cuts to people at the very high end of the income 
scale and somehow the benefits of that will trickle down and lift 
everybody up. The problem with that theory is it already crashed in the 
real world. Right in the early 2000s, that is what President Bush did. 
Incomes for folks at the top went up even more, but everybody else was 
running aground, running in place, or falling behind.
  That is why we presented a budget based on an economy that 
accelerates because more Americans are able to make bigger paychecks 
through harder work, and that is why we proposed to change the Tax Code 
from one that is currently skewed and tilted in favor of unearned 
income and simply making money off of money and against people who make 
money off of hard work.
  Why is the Tax Code skewed that way today? Probably because a lot of 
people who could afford to pay a lot of wealthy lobbyists made it that 
way.
  Yet the Republican budget doesn't close a single tax break for the 
purposes of reducing the deficit--not corporate jets, not the tax 
provisions that perversely encourage American companies to move jobs 
and capital overseas. We proposed to close those tax loopholes and 
bring those jobs and that capital back here to the United States to 
help power our economy, not the economies of our global economic 
competitors.
  So I hope that this Congress will reject a view of the economy that 
is based on the idea that everyone can only do well when the folks at 
the top get a tax cut as opposed to an economy where we are all in it 
together.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H2017]]

  Mr. Chair, my friend on the other side talks about the two budgets 
that we have before us, and I would remind him, as the majority leader 
did, about the debacle of 2010 when no budget came. So we would say 
that two budgets are better than none.
  I continue to be saddened, though, by the politics of division of our 
friends on the other side, dividing Americans, pitting Americans one 
against the other. In order for their vision to be true, one would have 
to believe that the government doesn't take enough of the American 
people's money and that the government isn't big enough. Those are the 
things you have to believe to believe that their vision is correct.
  Let me set the record straight on a couple of items that have just 
been brought up:
  One, our budget allows for over $300 billion in spending on 
innovation and research over the next 10 years. Our budget provides for 
a Medicare program that is guaranteed for all seniors, and with greater 
choices for those seniors. Our budget provides for a path in terms of 
infrastructure to actually find real money for transportation, not just 
painting a rosy picture for folks. And our budget believes that health 
care ought to be controlled by patients and families and doctors, not 
by Washington, D.C.
  What we do is responsibly lay out a plan for a healthy economy, an 
opportunity economy, one that opens doors for people, doesn't subject 
them to the dictates of Washington, D.C. You see, we believe in 
America, and we believe in Americans--all Americans.
  We understand our problems are significant. There is no doubt about 
it, Mr. Chairman. We hear the people of this Nation crying out, crying 
out for leadership here in Washington.
  This Balanced Budget for a Stronger America will result in a 
government that is more efficient and more effective and more 
accountable, one that frees up the American spirit, that of optimism 
and enthusiasm to do great things and to meet great challenges.
  I ask my colleagues for their strong support for this Balanced Budget 
for a Stronger America. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and 
a ``yes'' vote on final passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I come to the floor to 
speak in ardent opposition to the Republican Budget. This budget fails 
to deliver for the majority of hard-working Americans, many of whom are 
scraping by, living paycheck to paycheck. The House Republican budget 
would bring us back to the same top-down economics that have failed 
time and time again--tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, while 
slashing investments in the middle class.
  The GOP budget significantly undermines the economic and health 
security of the people of Texas. In the state of Texas alone the 
proposed budget would place an unnecessary economic burden on seniors 
by increasing the cost of prescriptions in the future and eliminating 
guaranteed access to Medicare. Although statistics show that the 
Affordable Care Act is working through the 16 million Americans that 
have gained coverage, the GOP budget would eliminate coverage for more 
than 1.2 million Texans receiving coverage through the marketplace.
  The House Republican budget ransacks our nation's commitment to 
education--the foundation for economic opportunity and a successful 
future--with severe cuts in elementary and secondary education and 
early learning programs, including measures which make college less 
affordable for millions of students who rely on Pell Grants, federal 
student loans, and higher education tax credits.
  In addition to students, the proposed Republican budget threatens 
workers, women and children. Under the Republican budget, middle class 
families will see higher taxes and millions will see fewer jobs. The 
last thing that hard-working Texas families can afford right now is 
higher taxes, fewer jobs and less growth. This budget would cut our 
investments in our nation's R&D and innovation enterprise--the 
investments that have allowed us to be a world leader in these fields. 
If we shortchange those accounts in an attempt to cut a few more 
dollars from the deficit over the short-term, the reality is that we 
will wind up shortchanging our future economy and quality of life for 
decades to come.
  We need a better plan and a better set of values to build a strong 
and prosperous America. I support a budget that would aid the American 
people by advancing our healthcare system, securing a pathway to proper 
funding for medical advancements and ensuring affordable healthcare for 
all. I support a budget that values the future of America's role in 
STEM advancements through technological innovation and scientific 
research. I support a budget that would lower taxes for working 
families and students; and a budget that would make sound investments 
in programs like Head Start. I support a budget that would reinvigorate 
our infrastructure through highway and mass transit planning and 
investment. As it stands, the Republican budget does not bring all of 
these options to the table.
  Though we may not always agree, as lawmakers, we must set aside our 
own political agendas by joining together to pass legislation that 
benefits all Americans. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in 
strong opposition to the Republican Budget, and instead to support the 
President's FY16 and to commit to more robust investments in our future 
economic prosperity.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, our national debt continues to pose a serious 
threat to our future economic growth and national security. If we fail 
to act, these threats will grow and the risk to our country will be far 
greater.
  Like so many American households know all too well, balancing a 
budget is never easy. The budget process requires us to make a number 
of hard choices between priorities we all support. However, there is no 
doubt that if we fail to make these difficult decisions today, we will 
face even more ominous options in the years ahead.
  If we followed President Obama's budget plan that's exactly where it 
would take us--more spending, more debt, and more kicking the can down 
the road. That's not leadership.
  Thankfully, House Republicans have chosen to once again pursue a 
responsible path that leads to a truly balanced budget. I want to 
applaud Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price and the rest of our 
colleagues on the committee for drafting a budget that cuts more than 
$5 trillion in spending and balances the budget in less than 10 years 
without raising taxes.
  The House budget will enhance our economic future by calling for a 
fairer, simpler tax code and repealing the job-killing provisions in 
ObamaCare, including its taxes, regulations and mandates. The plan 
promotes freedom of choice, affordability, and patient-centered heath 
care solutions.
  In order to protect our national security, the House budget will 
ensure necessary funding is provided for troop training, equipment and 
compensation. Defense spending under the plan will be greater than the 
level proposed in the President's budget and will ensure readiness. The 
budget also includes provisions that will improve the efficiency in the 
Defense Department, including the civilian workforce. Specifically, the 
budget contains language that echoes the REDUCE Act, legislation that I 
have introduced that would require any reductions in military end 
strength be accompanied by appropriate reductions in the civilian 
workforce in order to maintain a ratio that more closely resembles the 
historical average.
  There's no question that the House budget requires a number of 
sacrifices, but American families make and live with similar sacrifices 
every day and they expect our government to do the same. President 
Obama may not understand that, but I do and I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support the House Republican budget and its path towards 
a brighter economic future and a more secure America.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-49 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Tom Price of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Tom Price of Georgia.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


Amendment No. 5 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Tom Price 
                               of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Tom Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page H2018]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 319, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               AYES--105

     Allen
     Amash
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brat
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Foxx
     Garrett
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     Lance
     Latta
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     McClintock
     Meadows
     Messer
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Palmer
     Perry
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (NE)
     Stutzman
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Walden
     Walker
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)

                               NOES--319

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holding
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cuellar
     DeFazio
     Hinojosa
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1816

  Messrs. WALZ, JEFFRIES, FITZPATRICK, Ms. WILSON of Florida, and Mr. 
MULLIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WALDEN, ROSKAM, BISHOP of Michigan, SAM JOHNSON of Texas, 
TROTT, and Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


Amendment No. 6 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Tom Price 
                               of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 208, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               AYES--219

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boehner
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--208

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)

[[Page H2019]]


     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gosar
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Harris
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hinojosa
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1825

  Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Pursuant to the rule, it is now 
in order to consider a final period of general debate, which shall not 
exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of my 
colleagues for their work on this. Budgets aren't easy things, clearly. 
We have navigated some interesting times over the past couple of weeks. 
But I want to thank my colleagues for their wonderful and remarkable 
support.
  I especially want to thank the staff on the Budget Committee, both 
the majority and the minority staff. They worked tirelessly to get 
these work products forward. So I just want to say before all the 
Members of the House of Representatives how proud I am of the staff 
work that has been done.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I want to start by joining the chairman 
of the committee in thanking all Members for a vigorous debate, and 
especially to thank the staff of the Budget Committee.
  As for the Republican budget itself, nothing has changed since we 
began the debate yesterday to make it any better. It is the wrong 
direction for America.
  Madam Chair, when we gather here today, there is good news and bad 
news and some very bad news.
  The good news is the economy has been picking up. More Americans are 
going back to work. Not everything is rosy. We have a long way to go, 
but the trends are in the right direction.

                              {time}  1830

  The bad news is that Americans are working harder than ever, but a 
lot of them feel like they are running in place, and many are falling 
behind.
  This is not a new problem. It is a chronic problem. We have seen 
worker productivity in this country go up and up and up over the last 
several decades, but that additional hard work and productivity has not 
translated into higher wages for most working Americans. They have seen 
flat paychecks.
  If it is not going into higher wages for most workers, where is it 
going? It has gone disproportionately to the folks at the very, very 
top. They have been doing just great, but everybody else has been 
falling behind.
  Now, we had some good news after the election. The Speaker of this 
House and the Republican leader said they understood this issue. In 
fact, they both wrote that they were looking forward to helping 
struggling middle class Americans and were looking forward to dealing 
with wage stagnation.
  The very bad news for the country, Madam Chair, is, when you look at 
this Republican budget, it turns out they were just kidding because 
this Republican budget is very hard on hard-working Americans and on 
those looking to find a job. It says one message: work even harder; 
take home even less.
  It does absolutely nothing to increase the take home pay of workers 
or to increase their wages. It will increase the tax burden on millions 
of working families. Amazingly, it eliminates the college tax 
deduction. It increases the costs for working Americans by getting rid 
of the bump up in the child tax credit. It gets rid of the rate bump up 
in the ``make work pay'' earned income tax credit.
  For students, it makes college much more expensive. This Republican 
budget actually increases the costs of going to college. It increases 
the costs of student loans even as we hit over $1 trillion in student 
debt. It eliminates $90 billion worth of Pell grants.
  For seniors, they will immediately see higher prescription drug costs 
by reopening the doughnut hole. They will immediately see higher copays 
for preventative care, and seniors in nursing homes will see much worse 
care as they cut $900 billion from Medicaid.
  Now, while this budget squeezes working families and students and 
seniors, it paves the way for the Romney-Ryan tax cut plan--to cut tax 
rates for the folks at the very top--on the theory that somehow that is 
going to trickle down and boost the economy. It is a theory that 
crashed in the real world under President Bush when incomes for folks 
at the top went up but when everybody else's fell behind.
  While it makes life harder on working Americans right now, it also 
disinvests in the future of America. It dramatically cuts our 
investment in early education and K-12. It dramatically cuts our 
investment in innovation and science and research, which has helped 
power our economy. It assumes that the transportation trust fund will 
begin to run dry in a month and a half and that construction jobs will 
come short in a few months.
  The one thing it doesn't cut is any of the special interest tax 
breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit--not one--not for 
corporate jets. In fact, today, the Ways and Means Committee worked to 
provide a big tax break for 5,500 American families, and an average of 
75 percent of them have $20 million estates. They didn't want to touch 
that for the purpose of reducing the deficit, so they don't cut a 
single tax break.
  Despite all of that disinvestment in America, here is the thing: the 
budget never balances; it doesn't come close.
  Look at the USA Today editorial. They are not a partisan paper. They 
said it is pure fantasy to claim that this balances; it doesn't 
balance, but it does disinvest in America.
  We can do a lot better. We can do a lot better than a budget that 
continues to rig the rules for the folks who have already made it and 
one that makes life harder for everybody else. Let's reject this 
Republican budget, and let's get started back to work for the American 
people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, it has been said that budgets 
are about visions and that they are moral documents, and they are.
  What is our vision? We believe in promoting the greatest amount of 
opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number 
of Americans so that the greatest number of

[[Page H2020]]

American dreams can be realized and doing so in a way that demonstrates 
real hope and real compassion and real fairness without Washington's 
picking winners and losers.
  Many of our friends here on this floor have talked about budgets 
being moral documents, and they are. Let me ask, Madam Chair: Where is 
the morality in trapping disadvantaged people in a web of welfare 
programs that discourage self-sufficiency and, instead, shackle them to 
government dependency?
  Where is the morality, Madam Chair, in committing retirees to a 
health coverage program that is going bankrupt and that can't keep its 
promises if its so-called protectors keep blocking reform?
  Where is the morality, Madam Chair, in forcing low-income people into 
second rate health programs in which many can't get appointments and in 
which doctors are grossly under-reimbursed by the government?
  Where is the morality, Madam Chair, in stifling medical innovation 
and preventing new treatments from reaching patients because of ever-
expanding Washington bureaucracy and red tape?
  Where is the morality, Madam Chair, in tying college students to 
years of crippling debt because of a government-run program loan that 
drives up tuitions?
  Where is the morality in heaping trillions of dollars of debt onto 
future generations to finance today's government spending because 
today's policymakers refuse to stop overspending?
  Those are only a few examples of the regrettable consequences of 
well-intentioned, government-sponsored compassion. This Republican 
budget aims to break that pattern. It is not about cutting programs. It 
is about saving and strengthening programs to ensure a sustainable 
safety net for those who need it while encouraging and helping others 
to sustain themselves, the most truly compassionate thing that one can 
do for another. That is the morality of this budget.
  What does this budget do? It balances in less than 10 years without 
raising taxes. It reduces spending by over $5.5 trillion. It repeals 
ObamaCare and the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It ensures a 
strong defense.
  It makes sure that we save and strengthen and secure Medicare and 
Medicaid. We restore federalism and provide greater opportunity and 
greater choices for individuals in our States across this Nation, and 
we cut waste and corporate welfare.
  These are positive solutions for the American people, A Balanced 
Budget for a Stronger America. I encourage a ``yes'' vote so we can get 
the economy rolling again.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this budget. 
Hardworking American families are in deep trouble. Their wages have 
been stagnant or in decline for 30 years. Their jobs have been sent 
overseas by bad trade deals. They have seen none of the benefit of the 
economic recovery. These families are struggling to put bread on their 
tables and heat their homes, let alone take a vacation or start a 
college fund. Many are just one big expense away from disaster.
  We should be working to support these families, and make sure that 
they do not fall deeper into poverty. Instead, this radical and 
regressive budget would pull the rug out from under them.
  It would cut $1.8 trillion from Medicaid, and rob 14 million people 
of their coverage. It would turn the whole program into a block grant, 
leaving millions of families in limbo
  It would repeal the Affordable Care Act, increasing by millions the 
number of uninsured people in this country.
  It would partly privatize Medicare, allowing private insurers to 
cherry pick healthy seniors and leaving the rest of the program in 
ruins.
  It would block-grant the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
reducing benefits and barring access to this lifeline for millions of 
people.
  It would freeze the maximum Pell grant, denying low-income students a 
chance at college just as they need it more than ever to get into the 
middle class.
  All this at a time when we are spending close to $1.5 trillion every 
year on tax breaks and loopholes--much of it directed toward the 
wealthy and special interests. That is the spending we should be going 
after.
  Hardworking Americans need our help. After years of neglect, we 
should be investing in them once more. Instead, this budget leaves them 
out in the cold. We cannot allow this to happen. I urge my colleagues 
to vote against it.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 163, amendment in the nature of a 
substitute No. 6, offered by Mr. Tom Price of Georgia, is finally 
adopted and shall be reported to the House.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Acting 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. 27) establishing the budget for the United 
States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth appropriate 
budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 163, she reported the concurrent resolution back to 
the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent 
resolution, as amended.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on H. Con. Res. 
27 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's 
approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 199, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               YEAS--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boehner
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--199

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Comstock
     Connolly

[[Page H2021]]


     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Hinojosa
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Ruiz
     Sewell (AL)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1854

  So the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                             General Leave

  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 27.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________