Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 50 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)

[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

[[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.

[[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.

[[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.

[[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.

[[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.

[[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.

[[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.

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.

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.

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.

SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR RECONCILIATION.

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.

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

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.

SEC. 305. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

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.

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.

(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.

[[Page H1952]]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[[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.

[[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.

[[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.

[[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.

SEC. 620. POLICY STATEMENT ON REDUCING UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL,
AND UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING.

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.

[[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.

SEC. 626. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL ACCOUNTING
METHODOLOGIES.

[[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.

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

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.

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.

[[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.

[[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'');

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.

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.

[[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

[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

[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.

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

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

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

[[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.

[[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.

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.

(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.

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.

[[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.