[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 6000-6053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 544 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. 96.
  Will the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1304


                     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. 96) establishing the budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2015 and setting forth 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2016 through 2024, with 
Mr. Hastings in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, April 8, 
2014, 60 minutes of debate remained on the concurrent resolution.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each have 30 minutes remaining.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Well, here we are, Mr. Chairman, resuming the debate we left off 
yesterday. Let me try and give a summary of what this is all about.
  This is all about getting our fiscal house in order. This is all 
about prioritizing hardworking taxpayer dollars. This is all about 
doing in our generation what we need to do to make sure that the next 
generation has a secure future and a debt-free future. So that is why 
we are bringing a budget to the floor, that is why we are making those 
difficult decisions, and that is why we are advocating for these 
important reforms.
  In much of the 20th century, a lot of programs were created, and a 
lot of laudable goals were established. But now in the 21st century, I 
think we have learned a thing or two about how we can better accomplish 
and achieve some of these goals such as health and retirement security, 
because the way these programs were designed nearly a generation ago, 
they are now going into bankruptcy in this generation.
  If we allow that to happen, then we will pull out from underneath 
those who depend on these programs for their health and retirement 
security, we will renege on that social contract. More to the point, we 
are going to do damage to our economy if we keep this deficit and debt 
going on its current course.
  We asked the Congressional Budget Office to take a look at the kind 
of deficit and debt reduction that we are proposing and tell us over 
the long period, over the course of this budget, what does that do for 
America and for our economy? And they tell us that getting your 
economic and fiscal house in order, reducing the deficit and balancing 
the budget so that you can begin paying off the debt is good for 
economic growth. In fact, it will increase economic output by 1.8 
percentage points. That is actually a lot.
  What does that mean to every person in America? About $1,100 in more 
take-home pay and in higher income because we did our jobs here. But, 
more importantly, what it means for the next generation is, instead of 
sending our bills to them to work hard, to pay their taxes to pay off 
our bills and then they have to start working for themselves, we are 
going to give them a better future. Because we know right now--the CBO 
tells us as much--they are going to inherit a diminished future. That 
is point number one.
  Point number two is that we have got to stop spending money we don't 
have. We will hear all of these arguments about the draconian cuts and 
the slashing and all of this. These are the same arguments we have 
heard time and again. And when those arguments have prevailed, they 
have brought us to where we are today: extraordinarily high deficits, 
deficits going back to $1 trillion by the end of this budget period, 
and a debt that is about to take off. If we don't get this under 
control, then we will not have the kind of economy that the people of 
this country deserve.
  We don't want Washington to stand in the way of people's success. We 
want Washington to play its rightful supporting role so that people can 
become successful. We believe in a system of natural rights and 
equality of opportunity so people can make the most of their lives. We 
don't believe in a system where government thinks that they must take 
this commanding role within the middle of people's lives that ends up 
bankrupting this country, diminishing the future, and lowering economic 
growth and prosperity. There is a big difference in approaches. We want 
to tackle these challenges.
  What I also want to say is that we have an important obligation to 
secure this country and protect our national defense. America, like it 
or not, is the superpower nation in the world and a duty that falls 
upon us to take that responsibility seriously. With that responsibility 
also comes the ability to chart our own course in the world, to help 
preserve the peace, and to help pave the way for prosperity so that we 
can have economic opportunity and so that we can advance our views and 
our values and the protection of individual and human rights and 
democracy.
  These things are good for America. A strong America and a strong 
military helps make for a peaceful America and a prosperous America.
  So we need to take the needed reforms to make sure that these 
critical retirement programs are there, not only intact for people in 
and near retirement, but there for those of us who are younger when we 
hope to retire. We need to get our spending under control so we can 
balance our budget and pay off our debt. We need to enact pro-growth 
economic reform like tax reform and economic development to create jobs 
today.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  At the end of the day, instead of growing government spending at 5.2 
percent, which is the trend, we are proposing to grow it at 3.5 percent 
over the next 10 years. Hardly draconian.

[[Page 6001]]

  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Some things do not improve with age. We are here one day later, and 
this Republican budget is just as bad for the country today as it was 
yesterday.
  Our Republican colleagues are going to have to choose: either you 
claim your budget balances or you fess up to the American people that 
you are keeping big parts of the Affordable Care Act, because you can't 
do both. As we talked yesterday, the House Republican budget only 
reaches their claim of balance in 10 years if they take the revenues 
from the Affordable Care Act and all the savings from the Affordable 
Care Act. And if they are going to claim that they are repealing that--
as they voted 54-plus times to do on this floor--then their budget is 
automatically out of balance.
  Now, all of these budgets significantly reduce the deficit as a share 
of our economy in the outyears. The fundamental question is what 
choices these budgets make in getting there. And the Democratic budget 
that has been proposed and the President's budget, all those budgets 
say we need to have shared responsibility and we need to work together 
to accomplish that goal.
  The Republican budget rigs the rules in the favor of the most 
powerful and the most wealthy--right? So if you are a millionaire, 
under the Republican budget, you get your top tax rate cut by a full 
one-third, and everybody else in this budget gets walloped. So if you 
are a senior on Medicare, you will immediately see your prescription 
drug costs rise if you have high prescription drug costs--right?--
because they reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. That is a 
choice they make in the Republican budget for seniors today, even as 
they choose to protect special interest tax breaks for the very 
powerful.
  They choose in this budget to say that students, while they are still 
in college, will be charged interest rates on their student loans--that 
saves them $40 billion--while they protect tax breaks for hedge fund 
owners. We don't think that is the right choice.
  I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Budget Committee and 
the Ways and Means Committee who has always focused on making the right 
choice for the American people.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this budget is not a real plan to 
address the urgent needs of the American people. This budget is an 
announcement of a campaign for the Presidency of the United States. 
This bill is intended not to stir great debate in Congress that 
ultimately delivers fiercely needed solutions for Americans; instead, 
this bill is written for the 2016 Republican National Convention.
  When you listen to the chairman talk about this budget, what you are 
really hearing is the inaugural address of the 45th President of the 
United States, a rousing address that asks not what you can do for your 
country, but proudly proclaims your country refuses to do a thing for 
you: millions of seniors will be tossed off Medicare; the social safety 
net will be gutted to pay for millionaire tax cuts; infrastructure 
projects left to rot; denying millions of Americans health security; 
and Medicaid slashed to the bone. And that is just going to be the 
first 100 days.
  Remember as you vote: a budget is a statement of your moral 
principles of what you think ought to go on in a society. Today's vote 
is the first vote. If that kind of people get elected either in the 
Senate or in the Presidency in 2016, this is what you are going to see. 
They are putting it right out there for everybody in America to see. 
And that is why you must vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Wow, that is a doozy, I have got to tell you. 
That is a doozy if that kind of people get elected.
  Look, we just think we should balance the budget, have government 
live within its means, and pay off our debt. If those kinds of people 
get elected, great.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy), our distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the 
Path to Prosperity budget.
  Every day, millions of Americans are competing in a race with an 
economy that asks us to accept a new normal, an anemic growth, an Obama 
economy.
  I was recently in a high school speaking of the challenge that 
America had, and a student asked me a question about it. I asked him 
did he play a sport. He happened to be on the swim team. I said: Let me 
give you an analogy of America competing worldwide by a swim meet. 
Picture America in a swim competition with every other country. Many 
times at the early years, after the 1980s, we would jump into the pool 
and we would swim and we would win. We would hang those championship 
banners out. In this new Obama economy, things changed, a stimulus 
spending. Well, that meant we had to add a weight belt, about 20 
pounds. Then the tax increases came. We had to add more weight. An 
onslaught of regulation, pretty soon you are up to 100 pounds.
  You know what? We jump in that pool and we don't always win. And 
nobody says take the weight belt off. They just say you just don't swim 
like you used to. Think about it. Since the recession, part-time 
employment has increased at the expense of full-time. Over 90 million 
Americans are out of the workforce all together; 46 million live in 
poverty.
  You know, the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, now says the new 
natural rate for unemployment is 6 percent. That means 11 million 
Americans not working is somehow natural in America. That is what a 
weight belt will do for you. It will drown you.
  Today is different. Today we are going to unshackle. We are going to 
take that weight belt off. We have a budget that creates a Tax Code 
that is simpler and fairer, one that let's you keep more money in your 
pocket and lets you invest differently, one that balances and takes 
away that debt of the weight belt, one that unshackles the energy--more 
jobs, cheaper fuel, more manufacturing jobs to be able to grow. We 
strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. So we take care of the current and 
the future. We plan to swim for years and compete for years in the 
future.
  I tell you, today, there are two different directions: you can stay 
with this anemic growth or you can jump into a pool with a future 
brighter than we have seen before and one that we know that will hang a 
new banner of championship, that America will rise once again with the 
prosperity of a balanced budget, one that will take us into a future of 
strength.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, the gentleman referenced several times the 
Congressional Budget Office and the economy. I urge all our colleagues 
to read the Congressional Budget Office report. It indicates that this 
House Republican budget will actually slow down economic growth over 
the next couple of years and slow down job growth over the next couple 
years.
  Yes, we need a simpler, fairer Tax Code, but this House Republican 
budget would provide a huge tax break to the very wealthy and increase 
the tax burden on the middle class. In fact, they cut the top rate from 
39 percent to 25 percent. That is a full one-third tax cut. So 
millionaires get an average of $87,000 tax break. Middle-income 
taxpayers have to finance that cut for the folks at the top. That means 
an increased tax burden of $2,000 for a middle class family. That is 
not good, fair tax reform.
  For somebody who knows a lot about the economy and doing it right, I 
am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chair, budgets are a reflection of our values, they 
are a statement of our priorities, and they are about the choices we 
make to set the course for our future.
  With this budget, Republicans are choosing the well-off and well-
connected over middle class families,

[[Page 6002]]

choosing, for instance, $45 billion in tax subsidies for oil companies 
whose own executives say they don't need it over veterans of the wars 
in Afghanistan and Iraq who are out of work.
  They choose a new average tax cut of $200,000 per millionaire per 
year over 170,000 of our Nation's most vulnerable children who would 
lose Head Start services.
  Mr. Chair, we just finished with March Madness, and I am very proud 
of the University of Kentucky Wildcats. They had a great season. But 
isn't one of the cruel ironies of this debate, Coach Calipari of the 
University of Kentucky, who makes $5 million a year, roughly, under the 
Republican budget would get an additional tax cut of $700,000 a year, 
while the students who support his program would see their Pell grants 
slashed nationwide by a total of $145 billion over 10 years. Isn't that 
something? A man who makes $5 million coaching basketball gets a 
$700,000 tax break, while the students who were suffering and working 
hard to pay their way through college get slashed. This is one of the 
choices the budgets are about. This is why the Republican budget is 
totally out of step with American values. This is why we should reject 
the Republican budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 seconds to say, boy, I 
wonder what tax bill they are talking about, because it is not the one 
that is within the Republican budget. The Ways and Means Committee 
writes tax laws. We put out the outlines of tax reform that say there 
is a trillion dollars a year of tax expenditures, of loopholes that can 
be closed to give us a fairer, simpler Tax Code, that lowers taxes for 
everybody, all families and businesses, not whatever it is they are 
saying.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an extra 30 seconds.
  What we are saying is, keep the award where it is, the maximum award, 
and fully funded for the decade. That is slashing it?
  That is as opposed to the President who is saying let's grow it and 
then have some cliff and show no way or means of paying for it. The 
President and his budget is making a promise in Pell grants that he 
shows no way of keeping. We think we should make a promise and keep it; 
that is why we fully fund the current award at Pell.
  And, oh, by the way, we also are cognizant of the fact that a lot of 
studies show us we are raising tuition. We are contributing to tuition 
inflation. And we need to get to the bottom of that before we keeping 
throwing more money at a system that is raising tuition.
  Mr. Chair, with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Wenstrup).
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chair, in this House, we take the constitutional 
power of the purse very seriously. We also take the future of young 
Americans very seriously, and we take the notion of leaving something 
better for the next generation very seriously.
  Again, this year, the majority has proposed a budget that responsibly 
balances our budget within 10 years. It secures our social safety net 
for the most needy and for seniors. It repeals the uncertainty forced 
on Ohioans and all Americans by ObamaCare.
  The budget begins to unburden future generations from the tyranny of 
the debt being left to them by today's decisionmakers. The CBO 
estimates it will pay $223 billion in interest payments this year--$223 
billion in interest. That is enough to build 100 new Brent Spence 
bridges, which is an aging bridge that spans the Ohio River in 
Cincinnati, a critical artery for our Nation's highways reaching from 
Michigan to Florida.
  Going back to those payments, left unchecked, they will balloon to 
$880 billion within 10 years. That is about how much we are spending on 
Social Security every year right now. American prosperity cannot afford 
to throw our money away to interest payments.
  Vice President Joe Biden is fond of saying, ``Don't tell me what you 
value; show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.'' It is 
a revealing quote, Mr. Chair, especially since Senate Democrats yet 
again refuse to even consider a budget. I guess according to the Vice 
President, Senate Democrats don't really value anything at all.
  It is disrespectful to the American people and to hardworking 
Americans that this budget debate isn't happening in the Senate. As we 
have seen in recent years, the Senate Majority Leader has decided not 
to introduce a budget. In fact, the only time the Senate has introduced 
a budget recently was when the Senators knew that they wouldn't be paid 
unless they did so.
  I know that Ohio families and Ohio businesses budget and plan for the 
future. They should be able to expect at least as much from their 
government, and the House is meeting our obligation with this budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I just want to respond to a couple of 
points the chairman made about tax reform. You know, Republican 
etiology in Washington has been that of trickle-down economics. The 
idea is you provide the wealthiest people in the country with a tax 
break and somehow it trickles down and lifts everybody up. The problem 
is that theory was proven bankrupt in the early 2000s. Under the Bush 
administration, we tried that--lower tax rates at the top. The economy 
did not do any better. In fact, what we got was huge deficits.
  Now in this Republican budget, they are right back to the same old 
veiled theory. They called for reducing the top tax rate for 
millionaires from 39 percent down to 25 percent, and they claim that 
they are going to do this in a deficit-neutral way. When you do the 
math, what that means is you are going to have to increase the tax 
burden on middle class taxpayers to finance tax breaks for folks at the 
top.
  Just to give our Republican colleagues an opportunity to say that 
that is not what they intended, in the Budget Committee, we offered an 
amendment calling it Protect the American Middle Class from Tax 
Increases, saying, okay, at least tell the Ways and Means Committee 
that one of your principles as you reduce tax breaks for millionaires 
is not to increase the tax burden on the middle class, and every 
Republican on the Budget Committee voted against that provision.
  I am pleased that we have the author of that amendment with us on the 
floor right now. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great 
State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, this budget is fundamentally unserious. We 
have heard this now for 4 years in a row. My friends on the other side 
of the aisle come down to the floor with their draconian budget 
claiming they are reluctantly forced to make tough decisions because 
the specter of a debt crisis is right around the corner--this, despite 
the fact that our deficit is falling at the fastest rate since the end 
of the Second World War. We said this: we would do it, and we did it.
  This supposedly looming debt crisis is going to be so incredibly bad 
for this country that we need to reluctantly gut programs that help low 
and moderate Americans to prevent it.
  And you stand there and stand up there and talk to us about tax-and-
spend Democrats? You can't balance your budget without the Affordable 
Care Act. Isn't that a honey? You have done everything to dismantle it, 
over 50 votes to get rid of it. Now you are using it and the revenues 
to balance your budget. Ho, ho, ho. How very convenient of you. Their 
prescription to prevent this impending disaster is exactly what their 
Randian world view prescribes in the first place.
  Tax cuts for the wealthy paid for on the backs of those not so 
wealthy. Unfortunately, it leads to only one conclusion. The Republican 
Party does not care about our deficits.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey another 15 
seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, in the words of Vice President--remember 
him--Dick Cheney, he proclaimed, ``Deficits don't matter.''
  So, you have had a call to religion. You have come back. Your budget, 
the deficit is simply an excuse to cut the

[[Page 6003]]

social safety net. So I say, let's vote down this phony budget and get 
on with the real thing, Mr. Chair.
  The CHAIR. The Chair would remind Members to direct their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair, just in order to balance the time, 
I think we will let the gentleman from Maryland yield to another 
speaker so we can catch up.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If I could just inquire how much time remains.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 20\3/4\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 18 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Jeffries), a 
terrific member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend for 
yielding.
  The GOP budget is a product of the same type of extreme philosophy 
that gave rise to the reckless Republican shutdown last year. It is 
like a heat-seeking missile aimed directly at the American people. It 
is a parade of horribles too numerous to catalogue, but in the time 
that I have allotted I will try to highlight the most egregious 
aspects.
  It will cut $125 billion from the SNAP program, making it difficult 
for millions of food insecure Americans to get access to the nutrition 
needed to live a healthy life. It will cut $260 billion from higher 
education spending, depriving young Americans of the opportunity to get 
a college education and robustly pursue the American dream. It will cut 
$732 billion from the Medicaid program, making it hard for older 
Americans to get access to this vital safety net program. It will turn 
Medicare into a voucher program--that is a Trojan horse--effectively 
ending Medicare as we know it. It will balance the budget on the backs 
of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the poor, the 
sick, and the afflicted.
  The Democratic plan is designed to create progress for the greatest 
number of Americans possible. The Republican plan is all about 
prosperity for the few, and for that reason we should vote it down.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, I was Dracula; now I 
am conducting a parade of horribles and firing heat-seeking missiles at 
the American people. I am interested to see what comes next.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and the 
opportunity to stand and discuss the budget that we have before us.
  I find it so interesting that our constituents are watching this. 
They are paying attention because they are concerned, and with good 
reason.
  As one of my constituents said in a town hall meeting: I have got to 
tell you, I have got too much month left at the end of my money, and I 
am tired of it. I am tired of what this economy has been doing to my 
opportunities--wage stagnation, increases in health care costs.
  The American people are over it, and they are ready to see the 
Federal Government start to live within its means. Think about it like 
this. This is the week when millions of Americans are sitting around 
the kitchen table looking at their income tax form, filling it out, 
trying to make certain that they do it right.
  Let me ask you a question: Is it fair, is it right, for the men and 
women, the taxpayers, hardworking taxpayers in this country, is it 
right and fair to require them to send money to Washington, money that 
they don't have, money that causes them to struggle to meet their bills 
and to live within their means--they are struggling every month, and 
they have to send money to Washington to a government that refuses to 
live within its means.
  This is what we are talking about, and this is why a budget that 
actually makes $5.1 trillion worth of spending cuts is important. It is 
why it is important that we have a budget that says there is a pathway 
to economic growth. It is because it is what the American people want 
to see happen.
  I think our constituents find it very interesting that our colleagues 
across the aisle came to the Budget Committee room. What did they want 
to do? Plus it up, spend more--$1.5 trillion in taxes. More, let's take 
more from the taxpayer, let's grow the size of the government, let's 
make it bigger, let's make it more bloated.
  That is their solution to how to deal with what we have here in 
Washington as a spending crisis. We don't have a revenue problem; we 
have a spending problem, we have a priority problem, and we see this 
play out regularly.
  Mr. Chairman, it is why it is important for us to have a budget that 
balances in 10 years. I have to tell you, as a mom and a grandmom, I 
look a lot at what is happening to our children and our grandchildren.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional minute.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. You can call it draconian, you can call it all of 
these names, you can call all of us Neanderthals. But let me tell you 
what this is: this is a budget that is for our children because it is 
for reduced regulation, reduced taxation, reducing litigation, it is 
for innovation and job creation. That is what this budget is for. It is 
for fairness, because if we don't get this under control it will be my 
5-year-old and my 4-year-old grandchildren that are facing draconian 
taxes, draconian rates, draconian cuts in order to be able to stand and 
live here in America.
  So as we look at this, yes, we put the focus on right-sizing 
government, flexibility for the States, accountability to the American 
taxpayer, accountability to the children who are going to inherit the 
consequences of the decisions we make today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady used the term 
``draconian'' a couple of times, and the chairman keeps referring to 
comments that Democrats have made as ``overblown.'' I would just remind 
the body that it was just a few days ago that the senior Republican, 
the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, called the budget 
we are debating on the floor of the House draconian. That is what he 
called it--not a Democrat. So I think Members should keep that in mind 
as we proceed.
  I am now very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), a terrific member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The people I know and the people I meet work very hard every day. 
They want an opportunity for a good job, they want good schools, safe 
communities, and the promise that when they retire they can live their 
years in dignity. They want a government that is fair and helps make 
progress towards the American dream.
  But this Republican budget is not for the hardworking people of 
America. This Republican budget is crafted by the special interests for 
the special interests. Republicans stack the deck against working 
families and small businesses. Incomes of CEOs and the top 1 percent 
are soaring, but everyone else is working harder to get by.
  We need an economy that is firing on all cylinders for everybody, 
creating jobs that pay enough to keep up. Yet the Republican budget 
raises taxes on middle class families in order to cut taxes for people 
who earn over $1 million.
  Republicans ignore one of the most important ways to cut the debt and 
the deficit, and that is have more Americans working. If the middle 
class succeeds, then America succeeds.
  Republicans refuse to find one special interest loophole in the Tax 
Code. If you are incredibly rich, then you are incredibly lucky because 
this budget is for you. You pay less. But 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 
that

[[Page 6004]]

harder by cutting Pell grants and student loans.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if you have a job in 
construction at America's ports or in transportation, this Republican 
budget could cost you your job and new opportunities.
  If you believe America should remain the world leader in medical and 
scientific research, sorry, the Republican budget slashes research at 
the National Institutes of Health or in universities and research 
institutions.
  If you are an older American, the Republican budget asks you to pay 
much more for Medicare, long-term care, and nursing care. It takes away 
that secure lifeline that has been in place since Democratic Congresses 
passed Medicare and Medicaid so that you will be able to live your 
retirement years in dignity without the fear of poverty.
  This Republican budget is a cynical, special-interest driven vision 
of America. I recommend a strong ``no'' vote in opposition.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague.
  This budget--I am not going to call somebody Dracula. I am sure it is 
sincere--but it is all about cutting taxes at the public's expense. It 
disinvests in America. So we disinvest in R&D, we disinvest in our 
future. The gentlelady from Tennessee talked about children and the tax 
burden. What about their education? What about opportunity? What about 
the roads and bridges and tunnels and transit systems they won't have 
because they have crumbled because we have disinvested? That is what 
this budget is all about. It is absolutely on the wrong path and it is 
handing over our future to foreign competition.
  I urge defeat of this budget, and I urge more sensible solutions for 
the future.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, when we call for ``revenue 
neutral tax reform,'' that means tax reform that keeps raising the same 
amount of revenue we raise today, do it through a better Tax Code so we 
are not picking winners and losers, so we can grow the economy and 
create jobs.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Bucshon).
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Chairman, when I tour businesses in the Eighth 
District of Indiana and meet with Hoosier families, they tell me they 
are concerned about the enormous debt burdening our country.
  Just like Hoosier families and businesses that have to make hard 
decisions when money is tight, Washington must do the same in order to 
sustain our role as the leader in the free world.
  We are over $17 trillion in debt. It is clear Washington, D.C., has a 
spending problem, and there are two very different pathways to address 
this issue.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would continue us on the 
failed status quo pathway of more spending, more taxes, and more debt. 
Their plan does not address the long-term drivers of our debt. It 
raises taxes on families who are already struggling to make ends meet 
and has no intention of balancing, ever. And it does nothing to protect 
and strengthen the Medicare safety net promised to our seniors. Put 
simply, their plan does not implement serious reforms necessary to put 
us on a path to a sustainable future.
  Mr. Chairman, our budget has a different vision for America. Our 
budget plan saves $5.1 trillion over the next decade, pays down our 
debt, and encourages a growing and healthy economy. Our plan expands 
opportunities for all Americans by focusing on higher education and job 
training. We encourage a simpler, fairer Tax Code that saves Americans 
thousands of hours spent every year on tax compliance. Our plan 
protects the social safety net programs by encouraging upward mobility 
and providing States with the flexibility to meet the needs of their 
residents.
  One of the most important aspects of our budget plan provides Social 
Security and Medicare for our Nation's seniors. We preserve traditional 
Medicare for those in or near retirement, while also offering options 
for Medicare that strengthens this vital program so it is still around 
for future generations.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the Ryan budget plan, 
which puts our country on a pathway back to prosperity.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It does not strengthen Medicare to reopen the prescription drug 
doughnut hole, which is exactly what this Republican congressional 
budget does.
  If you are a senior with high prescription drug costs under this 
budget, it will cost you $1,200 more per year. The whole reason we 
closed the prescription drug doughnut hole was to prevent seniors in 
that position from having to undergo such economic hardship. But this 
Republican budget reopens that doughnut hole now.
  With respect to tax reform and picking winners and losers, the 
reality is that this Republican budget does pick winners and losers. 
The big winners are people at the very top of the income scale because 
millionaires will see their top tax rate cut by a full one-third.
  The result of that is that middle-income taxpayers are going to have 
to finance that in order to maintain what they call the deficit 
neutrality of it. That means that middle-income taxpayers with kids are 
going to pay an average of $2,000 more to finance the tax cuts for 
millionaires.

                              {time}  1345

  So millionaires are the winners, and middle class taxpayers are the 
losers. As I said just a moment ago, we gave our Republican colleagues 
an opportunity in the committee to say no, that is not their intention, 
but they voted against the amendment to protect American middle class 
taxpayers.
  I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), one of our terrific members of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth year in a row that the 
Republicans have introduced their roadmap for the future.
  If they took over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, what 
would they do? Who would be the winners and losers?
  The chairman of the Budget Committee said this is a win-win budget. 
It is a win if you are in the top percentile, and it is a win if you 
are in the second percentile, but the rest of us--the 98 percent--
certainly aren't winning.
  We lose 1.1 million jobs in 2015 and 3 million jobs in 2016 in the 
Republican budget. That is like firing every single person in the State 
of Wisconsin. We lose by slashing investments in infrastructure and 
science, in transportation and education, and for our seniors. The 
middle class taxpayers pay for it.
  We also lose on the fact that this has fuzzy math. The logic is 
terrible. To say this actually balances in 10 years is to say that 
Cheez Whiz is like real Wisconsin cheese. They cut the Affordable Care 
Act's benefits, but they keep the revenues, and they keep the savings, 
which is simply impossible.
  I hope the American public realizes that, if the Republicans take 
over, this is their roadmap. These are the cuts you are going to see, 
so I urge a ``no'' vote on the budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the 
Budget Committee and of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this budget is too weak. It is too weak in 
all the wrong places and in all the wrong ways. It is weak on 
opportunity. It is weak on competitiveness. It is weak on dealing with 
the tax avoidance

[[Page 6005]]

and loopholes that would allow us to invest in America. The House 
Republican budget actually grows the deficit--the opportunity deficit.
  A strong budget would help our students earn degrees without 
mortgaging their futures in order to achieve their full God-given 
potential, and it would enable an educated workforce that will allow us 
to be competitive in the world economy.
  A strong budget would invest in life-saving medical research, which 
would grow our economy and would respond to the folks from San Antonio 
who are here today to ask for more for Alzheimer's research, not by 
taking it from AIDS or cancer research, but by investing more to get 
the cures in order to save the lives and create the jobs that America 
ought to be about.
  A strong budget would invest in infrastructure, in roads and rails 
and bridges and harbors, like the Chinese are doing to move goods and 
move people and be competitive.
  A strong budget would ensure seniors' dignity in retirement, not what 
AARP says about this budget--that it would weaken the programs that 
provide the very foundation of health and retirement security for 
current and future generations.
  I urge the rejection of this weak Republican budget in favor of 
needed investments in our education, our infrastructure, our research, 
and our retirement security.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Those investments can be made by simply asking those who 
have been so privileged and who have enjoyed so many tax loopholes to 
pay their fair share for the future of America. I believe it is an 
investment for a stronger America, which will afford more opportunity 
to every family.
  I ask for the rejection of this budget in favor of a strong budget 
that is strong for America, strong for our economy, and strong for 
opportunity.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, apparently, a strong budget 
means we need to borrow more from the Chinese to fund our government.
  With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Wisconsinite, Mr. Duffy, who does know the difference between real 
cheese and Cheez Whiz.
  Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, as I sit and listen to this debate today, there is no 
doubt the Democrats' position is let's just keep the status quo, don't 
change anything, let's continue on with our $17 trillion debt, let's 
continue to borrow and spend and spend and borrow and never change 
course.
  We know that is their position by way of the amendments they offered 
in the Budget Committee and by the conversation you hear on the floor 
today. Mr. Chairman, we also know that, by way of the Senate budget, 
when they put one out, because it never balances, and we know that 
because of the President's budget that he puts out, because it never 
balances.
  It passes off this massive liability to the next generation, and 
their policies have a real impact on the country as a whole.
  We talk about seniors. The Medicare trust fund is going broke in 12 
years--it is going bankrupt--and my friends across the aisle, Mr. 
Chairman, don't want to change it. They want to leave our seniors today 
and our future seniors in jeopardy with a trust fund that is going 
broke.
  It is hard to lead. It is hard to put ideas on the table and say: 
listen, my friends, let's come together, let's be responsible, let's 
make it sustainable, let's fix it--when the response is: don't do a 
darned thing, continue on the course to a bankrupted trust fund.
  That doesn't serve our seniors well. That doesn't serve our next 
generation of seniors well.
  Speaking of Medicare, there is only one party in this town that took 
over $700 billion out of Medicare and used it for ObamaCare--they 
raided it--and that is the Democrat Party, Mr. Chairman. That is 
unacceptable, and to come to the floor today and tell us and the 
American people that they are here to protect it just isn't true.
  We are on the course to a fiscal calamity, and if that happens, who 
are the people who are hurt the most among us? The people who are hurt 
the worst are the poorest, the ones who are most in need of government 
assistance.
  We should look to our churches and to our communities for that help, 
but there is a role for government. If you have a debt crisis, if you 
have a fiscal crisis, and if you have people who have a hard time 
heating their homes or putting food on their tables or who have kids 
who want to go to college or if you want to build roads and bridges, 
there is not money there for those projects.
  If you want to be able to invest in your future, you have to make 
sure you have a budget that is sustainable. When you pay $230 billion 
in interest alone today, when the Fed is printing money to buy down 
that interest rate and when the President says, in 10 years, interest 
on the debt is going to be $880 billion--you can build a lot of roads, 
bridges, feed a lot of people, and send a lot of kids to school for 
almost $1 trillion a year.
  Let's fix this problem. Let's work together. Let's balance our 
budget. It starts right here in the House with the Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I hope all Members of the House will check the facts with respect to 
the impact of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare. If you actually look 
at what has happened since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, the per 
capita rate of increase in health care costs in this country has 
actually gone down.
  Talk to seniors on Medicare. Anybody who is paying attention right 
now, I ask them: What has their Part B premium done over the last 
couple of years? It has been steadier. In fact, this year, it went down 
in real terms. The value that seniors have gotten under Medicare has 
actually improved significantly, in part, due to the Affordable Care 
Act.
  Now, unlike the Democratic budget, which used some of the savings 
from getting rid of overpayments to some of the big insurance companies 
in Medicare and using those savings to strengthen things like the 
prescription drug benefit, the Republican budget keeps every dime of 
the Medicare savings from the Affordable Care Act, but they don't use 
any of it to strengthen Medicare.
  In fact, they reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. They start 
charging seniors now for preventative health services. Ultimately, they 
actually end the Medicare guarantee by turning Medicare into a voucher 
program, so that, if you actually wanted to stay in traditional 
Medicare, you would be paying a whopping high premium.
  That is not the way we should go, and that is all in a budget that 
continues to provide tax breaks to the very wealthy in this country. 
Those are not the right priorities for America.
  Now, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee and a Member who has focused on the right priorities for 
America and who recognizes that small business is the engine of growth 
and opportunity.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding, for fighting, 
and for being a real fiscal leader for small businesses in this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this budget. Far from 
being a path to prosperity, it is actually a path to the poorhouse. 
Sadly, just as it falls short in so many other ways, the Ryan budget 
clearly fails small businesses.
  Under this budget, resources that help small companies launch, grow, 
and hire will be cut by nearly $11 billion. A wide range of resources 
will be gutted--from contracts, to access to capital, to international 
trade assistance, to job training.
  This budget is not the right budget to help those businesses that are 
the backbone of the American economy at a time when this economy is 
still struggling.
  Studies have shown that many of these small business programs 
generate

[[Page 6006]]

more than $3 in Federal revenue for every dollar spent. What type of 
economic policy says that you cut programs that generate income for the 
Treasury?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. We just held a press conference today with so many 
small business people who have benefited from these types of programs. 
They are businesses that opened up in 2006. Today, we had a lady who 
provides IT services to the DOD and to many Federal agencies. Her 
business has grown from six people to 130 employees. These are the 
types of programs that we need in place in order to grow our economy.
  Republicans like to say that they are the champions of small 
businesses. They oppose the ACA, claiming it will harm small firms. 
They oppose Dodd-Frank, saying that it will hinder the ability of small 
businesses to get lending from traditional financial services; and yet 
they cut the very lending programs that provide, through the Federal 
Government, access to capital for small businesses.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. When we look at this budget, we know that the rhetoric 
does not match the reality. Rather than paying lip service to small 
businesses, we must invest in the programs that help them grow and 
create jobs. That is what we need, job creation in our country. We must 
do better.
  Vote ``no'' on this budget.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank Chairman Ryan for 
engaging the House in this very important process.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about real alternatives and routes we 
can take for the future of this country and for the future of our 
children.
  As a father to a 17-year-old daughter and twin 13-year-old boys, 
righting the fiscal path of this country is the reason that I ran for 
the opportunity to serve in this institution. Part of serving in this 
institution is creating a vision for America's financial future. This 
budget balances.
  Putting a budget on the floor of the House and putting forth a vision 
for America's fiscal future that balances is something that we need to 
do on a regular basis.
  It is sad that I had to fight for a provision to be put into this 
bill called No Budget, No Pay. As we know, the Senate will not take 
this budget process up, and they shouldn't be paid. I fought for that 
proposal because, if Members of Congress are not willing to put in the 
work to help balance our country's checkbook and fulfill their 
constitutional duties, they should not be paid.
  For hard-working taxpayers, this budget allows you to keep more of 
your paycheck while, again, balancing our budget. Compare that with the 
President's budget, which we will have a chance to vote on this week.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote 
``yes'' on the President's budget if you think it is the future for 
America, but that budget raises taxes by more than $1 trillion, and it 
never balances.
  We have got a clear choice here. For our seniors, this budget ends 
ObamaCare's raid on Medicare, and it puts seniors back in charge of 
their health care decisions. This budget also preserves Medicare for 
our current seniors, and it ensures that this vital program is 
available for all future generations.

                              {time}  1400

  For our students, this budget guarantees Pell grants for those who 
dream of going to college but need a little help. Right now, the 
program is estimated to become insolvent by 2016. Every year we don't 
have a plan, we risk the future of millions of students and contribute 
to the rising cost of tuition. As someone who represents nine 
universities and colleges and eight community colleges in my district, 
having no plan is unacceptable.
  For our veterans, this budget maintains advanced appropriations to 
ensure veterans still receive their benefits, regardless of what 
happens in Washington. Additionally, this budget would dedicate another 
$400 million to veterans programs.
  I did not come to Washington sit idly by and remain content with the 
current state of our Nation. I came here to make Washington work and 
provide the hardworking taxpayers of Illinois' 13th Congressional 
District with a better vision for America.
  This is a better vision for America, Mr. Chairman.
  And the attacks will come. Don't let the attacks get in the way of 
the facts.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), a distinguished member of the 
Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, our Nation is $17.4 trillion in debt and out-of-control 
spending here in Washington has no end in sight. In fact, the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that, on our current 
trajectory, we will return to $1 trillion annual budget deficits by the 
year 2022. This situation is untenable and threatens the Nation that we 
leave behind for our children and grandchildren.
  As I stand here and look at these young adults, they are the ones 
that are going to have to pay for our lack of courage to do what we 
need to do to balance this budget and get our country and our spending 
under control.
  The vast majority of Americans agree that the Federal Government 
should live within its means and that it should balance its budget the 
same way that American families do. That is why it was so disappointing 
that President Obama's FY 2015 budget proposal would increase Federal 
spending and never balance, despite calling for an additional $1.8 
trillion in taxes from hardworking Americans. In fact, the President's 
budget proposal would add an additional $8.3 trillion to the national 
debt.
  The American people and these children deserve better than this. That 
is why I am proud that my House Republican Budget colleagues and I have 
again acted where President Obama and the congressional Democrats 
failed to lead.
  This Path to Prosperity is our vision to control Washington spending 
and to help get our economy moving again so Americans can get back to 
work. This responsible budget proposal would cut spending by $5.1 
trillion, balance the budget in 10 years, and put us on a path to pay 
off our debt. We accomplish all of this without raising taxes on the 
hardworking American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this budget 
proposal.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic 
whip, who has focused on these important issues successfully for a long 
time.
  Mr. HOYER. I have focused on them; how successfully is an item of 
debate with myself.
  I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  This Republican budget, as I have said before, is an exercise in how 
not to achieve fiscal sustainability.
  Both the Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin-Domenici bipartisan commissions 
determined that the responsible approach to achieving fiscal 
sustainability is through a combination of balanced deficit reduction 
and strategic investments in long-term economic growth.
  The Bowles-Simpson report says: ``We must invest in education, 
infrastructure, and high-value research and development to help our 
economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it easier for 
business to create jobs.''
  The chairman of the Budget Committee voted against Bowles-Simpson.

[[Page 6007]]

  This budget disinvests in those priorities, which will help us create 
jobs and grow our middle class. It undercuts our ability to invest in 
economic competitiveness and the growth we need to secure the goal of a 
sustainable fiscal future.
  At the same time, the Republican budget does not follow the 
bipartisan commission's framework for achieving deficit savings: a 
balanced approach that combines new revenue with spending reductions.
  There are no new revenues in this budget, and its spending cuts are 
severe and irresponsible, cutting even deeper than the painful 
sequester.
  As I said yesterday, GOP Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers 
called those sequester levels ``unrealistic and ill-conceived,'' to 
which the chairman then rose and said: He said that last year.
  He may have said it last year, but the proposals you make are 
unchanged from last year, essentially; and this year, just a few days 
ago, he said your cuts were draconian.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I believe the gentleman is supposed to make 
his remarks to the chairman.
  Mr. HOYER. He is correct.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded to address his remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I regret the chairman was taking my remarks 
personally. Of course, they were meant simply from a policy perspective 
of how bad the policy is, not the chairman himself, who is a wonderful 
individual.
  In closing, let me say I urge every one of my colleagues who is 
troubled about our deficits and debt and who is deeply concerned about 
creating jobs and growing our economy to do the right thing: oppose 
this budget.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who has called the 
numbers in this budget draconian, apparently intends to vote for it. 
Mr. Chairman, I don't understand that. If I thought, as I do, that 
these numbers were draconian, the only alternative I would have is to 
vote ``no.''
  I lament the fact that we are not addressing in a bipartisan, 
comprehensive way putting America on a fiscally sustainable path. That 
would be the best economic stimulus that we could do for America. What 
a shame that, again, we have wasted that opportunity.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just pick up where Mr. Hoyer left off and ask the question: 
Why would the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee call 
this Republican budget draconian? After all, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee has said today: Don't worry. Actually, we're going to 
continue to grow the government just a little more slowly.
  But what that ignores is the fact that the portion of the budget that 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction over is 
that portion of the budget that we have used historically in this 
country to make investments that help our economy grow. They are 
investments in our kids' education, from early education, to K-12, to 
college education.
  That is the part of the budget that we have used to invest in 
research and development with discoveries at places like NASA that have 
had huge spinoff benefits for the rest of the country and the economy, 
investments that actually helped lead to the Internet, that have been 
hugely beneficial to our economy. That portion of the budget doesn't 
grow a little less slowly. They cut that portion of the budget. In 
fact, as a share of our economy, it is cut by 40 percent below the 
lowest level since the 1950s, since we have been keeping track.
  And so that is why we are saying that our global economic competitors 
are going to be cheering this Republican budget. We are talking about 
we would like to see a Make It In America agenda. This is a ``make it 
everywhere except America'' agenda. This actually provides tax cuts for 
U.S. corporations that move jobs overseas, and yet it cuts investments 
in jobs and economic development right here at home. That is why it is 
so misguided. That is why the Republican chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee says it is draconian.
  What is worse, it makes those cuts in our kids' education, basic R&D, 
and makes the cut in the senior prescription drug benefit while 
protecting these tax breaks for the most powerful and the very wealthy.
  The chairman has referred a number of times to tax expenditures. In 
fact, he mentioned the other day that, on an annual basis, tax 
expenditures are over a trillion dollars, in fact, more per year than 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Some of those tax expenditures 
have worthy policy goals, but a lot of them are there because very 
powerful special interests have gotten an exemption for themselves to 
the kind of Tax Code that everybody else has to pay for.
  What we have said is we should get rid of some of those tax breaks 
for the purpose of helping to reduce our deficit so we don't have to 
hit our kids' education so hard, so we don't have to disinvest from 
basic R&D, so we don't have to make the kind of cuts that the 
Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee calls draconian. 
But, no, Republicans don't want to do that. They say every time you 
close a tax loophole, you have got to use it to reduce the tax rate for 
wealthier Americans. We don't say, if you identify a spending program 
that no longer makes sense, you have to go spend it somewhere else. But 
when it comes to special interest tax expenditures, that is exactly the 
Republican position. You can only use it to bring down tax rates for 
multimillionaires.
  As a result, while the winners in this Republican budget are those 
folks at the very top, they sock it to everybody else. They sock it to 
seniors on Medicare; they sock it to our kids' education; and they sock 
it to the fundamental economic power of this country when they 
disinvest in the things that have helped make us a global power, and 
that is the wrong decision for America.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Washington Republican 
budget, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me try and translate for the viewer what is happening here.
  Every time you hear the word ``invest,'' that means take from 
hardworking taxpayers and spend in Washington; and then when that is 
not enough, ``invest'' means borrow--nearly half of which is from other 
countries--from the next generation and spend in Washington.
  Just so you know, when they keep saying invest, invest, invest, or 
you are not investing enough, disinvest, it means tax, borrow, and 
spend here in Washington, as if we know better how people should spend 
their money.
  The analysis we hear about jobs lost and how this isn't going to work 
and it is going to cost all these jobs is the same analysis that said 
the stimulus was going to be a boon. It is the same analysis they said 
that if we just borrow and spend $780 billion in Washington on shovel-
ready jobs, unemployment will never reach 10 percent and we will create 
millions of new jobs. It didn't work.
  It all comes down to this. Rather than prioritize our spending, 
rather than holding the Federal Government accountable and more 
transparent to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely 
and prudently, rather than balancing the budget and paying off debts so 
the next generation has a debt-free inheritance, rather than taking on 
the bloated Tax Code that is mired with special interest giveaways and 
tax breaks and loopholes, rather than opening up this incredible store 
of oil and gas that could give us a huge renaissance of more jobs and 
lower gas and home heating prices and a better foreign policy, rather 
than preserving our military and giving our troops what they need, 
rather than growing our economy and creating what is estimated by the 
CBO to give each person an average of $1,100 more in take-home pay 
because of that faster economic

[[Page 6008]]

growth, rather than doing any of that, just do more of the same. Stick 
with the status quo.
  That is what this rhetoric is. It is a straw man argument. It is 
basically an argument that says let's affix certain views to our 
opponents so that we can defeat these awful views that we say they have 
and win the debate by default so that we can stick with the status quo 
and keep doing more of the same.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, here is where we are headed. This debt, this red line 
is the status quo. This is where America is going. It is not a 
Republican or a Democrat thing. It is a math thing.
  What we are saying with this budget is, the status quo isn't working. 
We can't do more of the same because we are headed in the wrong 
direction. Everybody in this country knows this.
  This is our plan. It is actually a plan. Pay off the debt, grow jobs, 
and challenge the status quo. And that is why I urge adoption of this 
budget.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. 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. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Good afternoon. The biggest challenge facing America today is a 
Federal Government that simply won't live within its means.
  Now, spending cuts can get us back halfway to a balanced budget. But 
if we want to finish the job, we need to grow our economy so we can not 
only balance this budget, but begin paying down this dangerous $17 
trillion national debt.
  Under the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, the Joint 
Economic Committee, which I chair, provides analysis and 
recommendations about the goals and policies set forth in the Economic 
Report of the President to assist the House of Representatives in its 
consideration of this budget resolution.
  During the next few moments, the members of the Joint Economic 
Committee will answer three questions:
  Why has the Obama recovery been so weak and disappointing, when 
compared with past recoveries?
  How would a gradual reduction of Federal spending relative to the 
size of our economy, as envisioned in the budget resolution, help 
hardworking Americans by accelerating economic growth, accelerating job 
creation, and increasing real wages?
  And finally, how would the reforms envisioned in the Republican 
budget help Congress to make better tax and spending decisions in the 
future?
  To call the current recovery a disappointment to the American people, 
well, it is an understatement. The current recovery ranks either dead 
last or near the bottom on virtually every economic measure when 
compared to other recoveries of the past half a century. The economy's 
poor performance has left the United States with an enormous growth 
gap.
  Real gross domestic product, our economy, our output, has grown at 
slightly more than half the average of other recoveries. Not 
surprisingly, given the recovery's anemic rate of economic growth, 
private sector payroll employment, that is, jobs along Main Street, 
have also increased by only more than half the average of other 
recoveries.
  If you look at the paychecks, what people have in their budget at 
home after taxes, well, for middle class Americans, for middle class 
people, their wages have only increased by one-third of the average of 
other recoveries, and less than half of the next-worst recovery.
  So the middle class is struggling. But Wall Street, it is roaring. 
The S&P 500 Total Return Index, adjusted for inflation, has more than 
doubled. This, Mr. Chairman, is the recovery that left Main Street and 
middle class families behind.
  The Joint Economic Committee has compared this recovery to the 
average of other recoveries over the last 50 years and has identified 
this dangerous growth gap.
  And what is missing from the economy because of this disappointing 
recovery?
  Our economy should be $1.3 trillion larger today, over $1 trillion 
larger today, if this had just been an average economic recovery, 
rather than dead last.
  And had the number of jobs along Main Street grown at the average 
rate of others, we would have 5.7 million more Americans working today 
than what they are under this disappointing recovery.
  Last month, we reached a milestone. The number of jobs along Main 
Street finally matched its peak from when the recession began. This 
milestone would be good news, except that it comes about 4 years late.
  So after all these years, now 6 years, we are just back to breaking 
even on the number of jobs along Main Street.
  If you look at the economy, proportionately, there are fewer adults 
working today than when the recession ended. We have actually gone 
backwards as an economy since the recovery supposedly began.
  So no matter how you try to slice and dice the numbers, there is no 
hiding the fact that a smaller percentage of Americans are working 
today than when the recession ended.
  Turning from jobs to income that hardworking families receive, this 
recovery, regrettably, is even more disappointing. Since the recession 
ended, real personal income per person has barely edged up. I think it 
is 3.8 percent, barely noticeable. That is less than half what it 
should be in an average recovery.
  But what does it mean to an average family?
  What it means is that the average person in America is missing over 
$3,000 a year from their paycheck. And an average family of four in 
America today is missing $1,086 a month from their family budget. 
Imagine that.
  Imagine, for every family in America having an extra $1,000 a month 
to pay utilities, to save for college, for which costs are exploding, 
to pay for the new health care costs under the Affordable Care Act, to 
invest maybe in that new washer, dryer, repair that car.
  $1,000 a month is missing from the average family because of the slow 
growth policies of the White House and, regrettably, congressional 
Democrats.
  That is why middle class families are being left behind. That is why 
we can no longer stay the course in America. Families like this are 
missing too much money for Washington to continue to do the same old 
things that leave them behind.
  I could fill this entire hour with different statistics that make the 
same point, but by every measure the recovery is so disappointing. The 
question is, why? What is different about it?
  Well, some blame the housing bubble, its collapse and the financial 
panic, for the persistent weakness in our labor markets. Recoveries 
following the collapse of a debt-financed asset price bubble like this 
are typically slower than our recovery. We know that.
  While the collapse of the housing bubble undoubtedly has had some 
lingering effects, it is not the main factor, let alone the only factor 
for this disappointing recovery.
  What is unique about this recovery is the combination of the slow 
growth economic policies that President Obama has pursued.
  For example, looking back from 1982 to 2000, Federal spending 
declined as a percentage of the economy and the private sector boomed, 
creating more than 37 million jobs.
  Under President Obama, the opposite happened. Federal spending 
exploded to a post-World War II high of 24 percent of the economy, and 
we lost jobs.
  Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, they reduced the aftertax cost for new 
business investment. The Joint Economic Committee has shown that there 
is a strong correlation between when businesses invest in building 
equipment and software and the creation of real jobs along Main Street.

[[Page 6009]]

  In contrast, President Obama increased taxes on successful small 
businesses, on capital gains, and dividends, and slowed this recovery.
  Looking back, Presidents Clinton and Reagan took a balanced approach 
toward environmental, health, and safety regulations. By contrast, the 
Obama administration has launched a regulatory tsunami; red tape at the 
highest levels the last 3 years, historically high, and that slowed job 
creation along Main Street.
  Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton opened new markets for 
American sales through international trade agreements. Aside from 
completing the agreements left unfinished by President Bush, and 
despite having a first-rate trade team in place, opening new markets, 
tearing down the ``America Need Not Apply'' sign, allowing our 
companies' workers to compete on a level playing field, that is now 
stalled under this White House.
  Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton didn't burden a weak economy 
with costly new entitlement programs. By contrast, President Obama 
rammed the Affordable Care Act through Congress on party-line votes.
  The controversial Affordable Care Act is heightening uncertainty, 
boosting taxes by more than $1 trillion, undermining key industries 
like medical devices and small businesses, and causing millions of 
Americans, including families in my community, to lose access to 
doctors and to health insurance plans that they liked.
  Now they are paying more for a plan they didn't ask for, and are 
forced to do it or pay a tax.
  Notice that these past approaches to taxes and regulations, 
international trade were taken by both Republican and Democrat 
Presidents, approaches that both parties have recognized as good for 
our economy. Yet President Obama's actions remain remarkably out of 
sync with those sound policies.
  He continues to stay the course, while millions of Americans, they 
can't find full-time work. Millions more have just given up looking for 
work. Fewer and fewer people are in the workforce.
  It is not the elderly who are retiring, it is younger people, college 
graduates who spent all that time and all that money, and now they are 
working behind a cash register.
  You have got middle class Americans, again, missing over $1,000 from 
their monthly budget that could be helping them meet their needs 
because of the President's economic policies.
  What we do know, and what is incorporated in the Republican budget, 
is an economic policy mix that would do the opposite. It would ignite a 
boom in our economy through simple and well-known policy, the sound 
dollar that protects families against inflation and losing their 
purchasing power.
  Gradual decline of Federal spending as a percentage of the economy, 
that is a key one. Tax reform that lowers the aftertax cost for 
business investment, grows our economy; balanced regulation and opening 
new markets around the world for American companies and workers--that 
is the best way to strengthen our economy, create millions of new jobs, 
and get America back on the right track again.
  The budget resolution proposed by Republicans in the House says no 
more slow growth. No more stay the course. We will not settle for a 
second-rate economy.
  Our families deserve better. They deserve $1,000 more a month, and 
this is the path to get us there.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, 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.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the budget offered by our Republican 
colleagues is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the solution to 
our problems.
  It is the problem, because this is not a budget; it is a retreat. It 
is a retreat from the high ideals, noble goals, and bold dreams that 
have made this country so great.
  As the author and columnist Nicholas Kristof recently pointed out, a 
new ranking of livability in 132 countries shows that the United States 
has fallen to 16th, fallen. But apparently, our Republican friends 
think that is just a little too high.
  We now rank 24th in inequality in the attainment of education. But 
the Republican budget would cut Pell grants that help low-income 
students afford college.
  We rank 29th in life expectancy, and 24th in nutrition and basic 
medical care, and the Ryan budget would cut funding for food stamps and 
Medicaid, and raise the eligibility of Medicare.

                              {time}  1430

  We rank just 70th in health, and Republicans want to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act and snatch health care coverage away from millions 
who just received it.
  This is not a budget, Mr. Chair. This is a call to Americans to dream 
small and aim low. This is an attempt to shift costs onto the shoulders 
of the middle class, the young, and the elderly in a way that would 
cripple our ability to compete.
  I believe we are a better people than this and a greater Nation. Look 
at just about any poll on the subject these days, and you can see that 
Americans are most concerned about jobs and growing our American 
economy. What the American people want to see from the Congress is a 
plan that will help accelerate the growth of our economy and create 
good jobs, but the crushing austerity of the Ryan plan would do just 
the opposite.
  This makes no sense because we know what actually works and what 
actually grows jobs and what doesn't. We have seen it, and we have 
lived it. The record speaks for itself. It shows whose ideas actually 
work in the real world and whose don't.
  Since 1961, the private sector has added a total of 66 million jobs. 
Twenty-four million of them were added under Republican Presidents, and 
a whopping 42 million were added under Democratic Presidents.
  Let's take a look at this chart. Under President Clinton, this 
country grew a whopping 22.6 million jobs, and he left office running 
an annual surplus of over $128 billion projected to grow into the 
trillions. Then, under the 8 years of President Bush, we added only 1.2 
million jobs--what a stark difference--and the budget surplus was 
turned into an annual $1.4 trillion deficit.
  When President Obama took office, our economy was shedding over 
800,000 jobs a month, and the Bush administration left office with the 
worst job creation record in 75 years. Nevertheless, in the 5 years 
since President Obama took office, we have created 4.7 million jobs, 
nearly four times what was created under President Bush, and we have 
more than halved the annual deficit.
  The actions swiftly implemented by the President and Democratic 
Congress quickly turned the economy around, and job losses diminished; 
and, as this next chart shows, those actions have worked. We have been 
gaining jobs for the last 49 months.
  In that time, the economy has added 8.9 million private sector jobs, 
regaining more than all of the jobs lost during the great recession.
  This chart shows what I call the deep red Republican valley, where we 
were shedding over 800,000 jobs a month. Since President Obama took 
office with his economic plan, we have been growing jobs.
  Democrats understand that, in order to maintain our leadership in the 
world economy, America needs to continually sharpen its competitive 
edge; and we understand that, while investing in the future may carry 
some risk, refusing to do so carries an iron-bound certainty, the 
certainty of a slow decline and crippling decay.
  Instead of investing in the future and in the next generation, the 
Ryan budget guts funding for education, workforce training, critical 
infrastructure, scientific research, public health, clean energy, 
advanced manufacturing, and public safety, all the investments needed 
to make the American economy of tomorrow competitive and put us on the 
cutting edge.
  Instead of fully preparing the next generation for tomorrow's 
economy, the Ryan budget cuts funding for early childhood education, K-
12 education, special education, and higher education. It slashes 
grants and charges

[[Page 6010]]

students more interest on their college loans.
  It lets the higher education tax cut expire, saddling our young 
people with even more student loan debt; and we know now that student 
loan debt is now larger than credit card debt in our country. It is a 
crippling concern.
  Sadly, the cuts extend far beyond education. The Ryan budget proposes 
draconian cuts to nutrition assistance, home heating assistance, and 
rental assistance. SNAP, which provides food security for millions of 
American children, is cut more than $135 billion, and 200,000 fewer 
women and children would get basic nutrition through the WIC program.
  We can all agree that the economic recovery has been too slow, and 
yet this Republican budget cuts critical investments to create jobs and 
enhance our competitiveness.
  In 2015 alone, the budget cuts $52 billion from efforts to update our 
crumbling transportation infrastructure. That amounts to over 1.5 
million jobs. The budget cuts the National Institutes of Health and 
National Science Foundation, threatening our edge in medical and 
scientific innovation.
  The Republican budget even eliminates funding for the arts, 
humanities, and public broadcasting, which support the institutions 
that enrich our lives and chronicle our cultural and artistic heritage.
  Further, the Ryan budget would cut health care funding and increase 
costs for seniors. It would raise the age to qualify for Medicare to 67 
and bring back the dreaded doughnut hole that leaves too many seniors 
to choose between their medication and putting food on the table.
  After nearly a century of talking about doing it, we have finally 
expanded health care to cover more Americans. Yes, there have been 
bumps along the way, as there have been with the implementation of 
transformational social programs, like with Medicare and Part D 
prescription drugs; but the important thing is that it is working.
  Already, 7 million people have signed up through the health insurance 
marketplaces, and another 3 million young adults have been able to 
remain on their parents' health plans until they turn 26.
  Under the Ryan plan, these 10 million Americans who thought, at long 
last, they had reliable and affordable health care insurance would have 
it snatched away from them, but it is even worse than that.
  By 2024, a staggering total of 40 million people would become 
uninsured under the Ryan plan. The CBO projects that 25 million people, 
who would have gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act, will, 
instead, have to go without it, and there are another 14 to 20 million 
people who would lose insurance as a result of the block granting and 
Medicaid cutting laid out in the Ryan budget.
  After 53 failed attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Ryan 
budget hopes to succeed in taking us backwards to those dark days when 
people with preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage, when 
protections against lifetime limits didn't exist.
  No-cost preventive services, like mammograms and cervical cancer 
screenings, would be no more. It would take us back to a time when 
women were charged more just because they were women and when the 
insurance companies called the shots.
  From the smallest children to the oldest seniors who rely on Medicaid 
for health care and to cover long-term health bills, the Ryan Medicaid 
cuts will negatively affect literally millions. Women who make up 
almost 70 percent of adult Medicaid beneficiaries will especially feel 
the sting. The most vulnerable will be hurt the most.
  Mr. Chair, budgets are about choices, and we face a truly watershed 
choice now. We can choose to continue to do things that have lifted the 
hopes of millions, provided unparalleled opportunities, and made our 
country the envy of the world.
  We can choose to continue to help those who need it the most and 
provide a measure of care to those who have the least; or we can choose 
to go down a radically different road, concede the future to the bold, 
defer to others, expect less, and turn our faces away from the 
downtrodden and the dispossessed.
  Yes, we can make that choice; but please, Mr. Chair, let's stop 
referring to this as a budget and call it what it really is, a retreat, 
an act of surrender. It is giving up on the America we have always 
known.
  This is not a blueprint. It is a black eye. We are a better people 
than this and a greater Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' 
America does not retreat.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a key member of the Joint Economic 
Committee, a businessman who knows that more than half of Americans 
today believe we are still in a recession, that they have given up and 
feel like this country is surrendering, and he knows the impact.
  Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I want to just speak for a few minutes in favor of the 
Republican budget resolution. This is a budget resolution that stands 
in stark contrast today compared to what the President has offered in 
his budget.
  It is a budget that balances. It is a budget that is responsible. It 
is a budget that is thoughtful. It addresses the spending side of the 
ledger to be more fiscally responsible, and it also includes, Mr. 
Chair, a roadmap for progrowth tax reform to create a healthier 
economy.
  Yes, we need to spend less, but our national debt and our budget 
imbalance have grown so big that we can't fix them alone by simply 
addressing spending. We have also got to grow our economy and put 
people back to work to bring in more revenue.
  We are suffering from a growth gap. Normally, the economy doubles 
every 20 years; but because of excessive Washington spending, budget 
deficits, high debt, these onerous regulations that come out of 
Washington, and higher taxes, the economy is now set to double every 30 
years; so we have literally added 10 years onto our growth cycle.
  What does that mean? The growth gap means this, Mr. Chair: it means, 
for disposable income, since the end of the recession nearly 5 years 
ago, every man, woman, and child has been robbed of almost $3,200 every 
year.
  It means that a family of four has been robbed of about $13,000. That 
is an additional average of aftertax income and disposable income. That 
is real money to a family. What could you do with $13,000?
  Our economy is performing way below average. We can do a lot better 
than performing below average. This budget expands opportunities for 
American workers by equipping them with the skills that they need to 
succeed in a 21st century economy.
  It lays a path to reform a broken Tax Code by simplifying and 
lowering tax rates, by eliminating special interest loopholes, and by 
moving us to an internationally competitive tax system, so that U.S. 
employers can compete fairly in a global economy.
  We need commonsense tax reform to keep American businesses 
headquartered here in the U.S., so that we can sell to customers 
overseas, bring the earnings back, keep our headquarter companies here, 
keep the innovation here, and keep the jobs here.
  This budget also cuts cronyism, corporate welfare, and waste. It ends 
the Dodd-Frank bailouts of big banks. It eliminates billions in 
corporate welfare, and very importantly, it protects and strengthens 
important programs that our seniors rely on and ensures that these 
programs will be there for future generations.
  It is time to stop spending money that we don't have. We can no 
longer borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend.
  Finally, Mr. Chair, this budget not only balances by growing our 
economy and making government more efficient, it also puts the country 
back on a path to actually paying down the national debt because the 
longer we wait to address the drivers of our debt, the harder our 
choices will be later.

[[Page 6011]]

  This is a budget proposal and a blueprint that puts the country back 
on track for a balanced and responsible path. I would ask my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the passage of the Republican budget.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I now yield 7 minutes 
to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who 
is a champion of working families.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, since February of 2010, more than 8 million jobs have been 
create in the our Nation. Over the last year, the unemployment rate has 
fallen by four-fifths of a percentage point.
  These numbers demonstrate the significant progress we have made in 
growing our economy and putting Americans back to work after the worst 
economic crisis since the Great Depression.
  However, there is still far more we can do to strengthen our economy 
and begin to reduce the growing income inequality in our great Nation.

                              {time}  1445

  Sadly, instead of proposing a budget that would help us expand the 
middle class, Republicans have, again, offered a budget that seeks to 
help the wealthy at the expense of the many. Just as in the years past, 
the 2015 Ryan budget would slash nondefense discretionary spending 
without regard for the devastating consequences these cuts would have 
on the lives of Main Street Americans.
  This year's Ryan budget would cut an additional $791 billion from the 
postsequester funding caps from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 
2024. As in the past, the budget also offers an ideological wish list 
of policies that will increase the unemployment rate, hurt low-income 
families, and harm our seniors--all to protect the interests of the 
wealthiest among us.
  The Ryan budget does not extend emergency unemployment benefits, even 
though these benefits would help our broader economy, as well as the 
millions of families that have suffered the devastating consequences of 
long-term unemployment.
  Never before has Congress failed to provide Federal unemployment 
insurance when the unemployment rate--especially for the long-term 
unemployed--is as high as it is today.
  This budget would also hit middle class families with thousands of 
dollars in additional taxes every year, while lowering the top tax rate 
for the rich.
  The Ryan budget would repeal the Affordable Care Act, taking health 
care from millions of middle-income Americans. It would gut Medicaid, 
taking health care from millions of our poorest families, and it would 
destroy the commitments we have made to our Nation's seniors by turning 
Medicare into a voucher program.
  This budget would also be devastating for our Federal workforce, the 
people who care for our veterans, who protect our homeland, who ensure 
the food we eat is safe, and who conduct the research on which we are 
relying to find new treatments for cancer and other devastating 
diseases.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the Republicans have been attacking 
our Federal employees for years, treating them as if they were the 
piggybank for deficit reduction.
  Federal workers have already sacrificed $140 billion towards reducing 
this Nation's deficit through a 3-year pay freeze and retirement 
contribution increases. Now, House Republicans want to squeeze another 
$125 billion out of these middle class workers. How will they do this?
  The Ryan budget would increase Federal employee pension contributions 
to 6.53 percent, an increase of more than 5.5 percentage points for 
many current Federal workers, but it would not increase any benefits 
provided to these same workers.
  Of course, proposals for increasing the contributions Federal 
employees make to their pension funds are not new. This year's budget 
also includes a provision prohibiting new Federal employees from 
enrolling in the retirement system that has served Federal employees 
since the 1920s.
  Let me make this clear. Under the Ryan budget, one leg of the so-
called three-legged stool on which Federal employees have relied for 
security in their retirement would be ripped out from under them. New 
Federal employees would be left to rely solely on the savings they 
accumulate in their Thrift Savings Plan and on Social Security.
  As if that wasn't enough, the Ryan budget would also eliminate the 
student loan repayment program for Federal workers, even though this is 
a vital recruitment and retention incentive used to attract the best 
and brightest to serve the American people.
  The budget also proposes to cut the Federal workforce by 10 percent. 
Contrary to the claims of some that our government is growing out of 
control, the Federal Government has actually cut 85,000 jobs in the 
last 12 months.
  An additional arbitrary workforce reduction isn't likely to yield the 
savings the Republicans expect because much of the current work of the 
government would simply be shifted to more expensive contractors. Such 
a reduction would, however, impede the government's ability to provide 
needed services to the American people in a timely manner.
  I agree that Congress must act to put our fiscal house in order, but 
we must do this in a balanced manner that increases economic stability 
and certainty in the marketplace. We must not do this on the backs of 
our neediest citizens, and we must not do this on the backs of the 
Federal employees who make government work for our Nation every day.
  Republicans fail to understand that we simply cannot cut our way to 
prosperity. Expanding opportunity and investing in America today will 
increase government revenues in the years to come and put our economy 
back on the path to prosperity.
  For the good of our Nation, I urge my colleagues to reject the Ryan 
budget.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we hear all the votes and the claims from our Democrat 
friends about how great the economy is going and what great leadership 
they have shown from the White House to get people back to work. They 
claim millions and millions and millions of jobs, but Americans don't 
feel that way and for good reason.
  Let's put all this job surge in perspective. Now, here is the average 
economy recoveries--because America does face tough times from time to 
time. We normally bounce back pretty strongly, but not this time and 
not under this President.
  If you look at job creation in the last 4 years, this is the average 
of the other recoveries. This is the Reagan average. That was real 
economic growth, and as you can tell, only twice in the last 4 years or 
more has the Obama recovery even met average.
  Only 2 months out of more than 4 years has this recovery even been 
merely average, and it has never reached the real strong growth of the 
Reagan recovery because unemployment, by the way, reached higher points 
in this recession.
  So, clearly, by underperforming, by being so disappointing, what this 
chart really shows is the millions of Americans--middle class 
Americans--who have been left behind by this disappointing recovery. 
You look at this and you wonder: Well, so what does this mean to the 
economy?
  In the next chart, I will show you what is missing. People back home 
and people all across America are saying that you have got to get this 
economy going, it is just hurting us so badly; but because, again, this 
President and our Democratic friends choose to slow the growth of 
America, we are now missing, gosh, almost $4 trillion--$3.7 trillion, 
to be exact, is missing from our economy.
  That should be in our Main Street businesses. It ought to be in our 
small businesses. It ought to be driving our economy, instead of 
trailing China. Instead of being lectured by the rest of the world, 
America should have a strong economy by now. This is a disappointing 
recovery.
  The Republican budget actually starts to restrain spending and has 
tax reform to grow the economy. While you

[[Page 6012]]

have heard some claim that trillions of dollars of cuts will devastate 
the Federal safety net, the truth is that the Republican budget over 
the next 10 years grows by about 3 percent a year. That is because 
America's population is growing as well.
  Only in Washington is growth and spending a cut. What it does is it 
cuts the waste, fraud, and abuse in this big, flat, bloated government, 
and it makes smart investments, though, in defense, in Medicare, and in 
infrastructure.
  Our Democrat friends are crying today for more emergency unemployment 
benefits, but those benefits are for when the unemployment rate is 
going up and getting higher, but, today, in all 50 States, that rate is 
going down and going lower. What we should be focusing on is getting 
people back to work, not a check, but a good-paying job.
  Instead, the White House has obstinately blocked the Keystone XL 
pipeline and those thousands of jobs. They have obsessively pushed the 
Affordable Care Act on our small businesses who are cutting hours, 
cutting workers, cutting wages, and hurting the economy--and then all 
the new regulation.
  The Republican budget preserves Medicare and Medicaid, and for 
Medicaid, which is our health care for the poor, the budget grows for 
them, but it does an important thing. It gives back to the States the 
ability to tailor health care for their States to meet their patients 
in their communities and in their regions. That is the way it ought to 
be done.
  The Democrats hollow out our defense, hollow out our intelligence 
system, and ignore our veterans. The Republican budget restores our 
military strength to the presequester levels. We focus on our veterans 
in America. They deserve no less.
  The Republican budget saves Medicare both for those who are in or 
near retirement, but, more importantly, for those who wonder if 
Medicare will be there for them. It offers options for younger workers, 
including just staying in traditional Medicare or tailoring a plan that 
is right for them and their families.
  The Democrats ignore the challenges facing America. They ignore this 
disappointing recovery. They say: just stay the course, the country is 
doing fine.
  But the country isn't doing fine. Our families, they aren't doing 
fine at all, and they are missing $1,000 a month from their paychecks 
because this White House and this Democrat Senate continue to stay the 
course.
  Let's change the course for America.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how 
much time is remaining on this side?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 12 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Now, my good friend from Texas pointed out that the recovery has been 
slow, but at least it is a recovery. It is not a loss of jobs, as we 
see in this chart, the long, red valley of job loss, shedding over 
800,000 jobs a month when President Obama took office, and we have job 
growth.
  I would like to see it stronger and better, too, but at least it is 
job growth. The former President Bush left us with a $1.4 trillion 
deficit when he inherited a surplus and the worst job growth record in 
75 years.
  I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland 
(Mr. Delaney). He is a former CEO of a public company which has brought 
great expertise to the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New 
York for yielding me this time to stand up, rise, and speak out against 
Mr. Ryan's budget.
  While I have many significant policy objections that are embedded in 
Mr. Ryan's budget, my main objection is based on the fact that the 
budget is built upon a fundamentally flawed analytical framework. I 
think it is important to focus on that when we think about budgets, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The fundamental driver--or the goal of the Ryan budget is to have our 
deficits at zero in 10 years. I believe Mr. Ryan does this because he 
thinks it is good political optics, and it sounds good. The problem 
with this goal is it is fundamentally, economically and fiscally, the 
wrong goal. It is unnecessary, and it is unrealistic.
  It is unrealistic based on the fact of the demographics the country 
is facing. We are somewhere through the midway of this aging of the 
population that we like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, where the 
population of people over 65--our citizens over 65 will double from 
1980 to 2020 to 2030. This puts tremendous burdens on the Federal 
Government.
  But it is also an unnecessary goal. A zero deficit is an unnecessary 
goal if you think about the basic math of deficits and debt. The reason 
our debt has grown to such a significant level in this country is 
because, for the last several years, our deficits, as expressed as a 
percentage of the economy, have exceeded the economic growth on an 
annual basis for the economy. The math of that results in a growing 
debt, which is problematic.
  Unless we change the direction of our debt, we will have very limited 
financial flexibility in the future, particularly if interest rates go 
up; but, in fact, if we get our deficits to a rate below the rate of 
growth in the economy, then definitionally, the debt in this country 
will go down.
  Most experts agree that we should be targeting deficits of 1 to 2 
percent and economic growth of at least 2 to 3 percent. That will cause 
our debt to go down to historical levels and give this country the 
financial flexibility that it needs.
  So if you seek an unrealistic goal or if you seek the wrong goal in 
budgeting and forecasting, you are forced to overcorrect. There are two 
ways to overcorrect in budgets--or at least in the Federal budget. The 
first way you can overcorrect is to raise taxes to an excessive level. 
The second way you can overcorrect is to cut spending to unrealistic 
levels.
  Mr. Ryan, obviously, doesn't choose to raise taxes. In fact, he cuts 
taxes which, again, is an unusual and puzzling conclusion, particularly 
based on the fact that our tax revenues as a percentage of the economy 
across the last several years have been lower than the historical 50-
year average for this country.
  So to think that we should be cutting taxes against that backdrop, 
again, is a puzzling decision, but since he chooses to cut taxes, he is 
then forced to overcorrect on the spending side.
  To put this into perspective, in very, very simple perspective, the 
Ryan budget takes discretionary spending, things like education, 
infrastructure, and investments in basic medical research, to 1.7 
percent of our economy.

                              {time}  1500

  This is in the context of a historical average for these same 
investments of 3 percent. We can't really talk about growing or 
shrinking numbers in absolute dollars; we always have to talk about 
these numbers, if we want any kind of budget integrity, in terms of a 
percentage of the economy.
  He effectively cuts in half our investments in infrastructure, 
education, and basic medical research as a percentage of the economy as 
compared to the 50-year average. That is the overcorrection he does 
because he is trying to achieve a goal that is both unrealistic and 
unnecessary.
  It is not clear to me, Mr. Chairman, someone who has spent his whole 
career in the private sector building companies, how anyone with 
reasonable cognitive abilities would think, in light of the challenges 
this country faces to create jobs, as we have discussed, to compete in 
a global economy and to transfer our economy based on what is happening 
with technology, that it is the right answer--that it is the right 
answer to cut our investments in research, in infrastructure and 
education by half.
  That is the fundamental flaw in the analytical framework that is 
embedded behind Mr. Ryan's budget, which only reinforces my conclusion 
that this is a political document; this is not a substantive document.

[[Page 6013]]

  This is not a document that was created by looking at the facts, 
thinking about economics, understanding how deficits and debt 
interrelate and what we need to actually make this country competitive, 
create jobs, and put ourselves on a long-term fiscally sound 
trajectory.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from New York has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Amid all the predictions of doom and gloom, the truth is the 
Republican budget grows by 3 percent a year over the next decade. It 
doesn't shrink; it grows. The population grows, and so that makes 
sense.
  It does cut wasteful spending, and there is a lot of wasteful 
spending to cut. More importantly, it grows the economy and tackles the 
biggest challenge America has, which is a broken Tax Code. This 
resolution begins to rein in the IRS.
  This budget begins to save Social Security and Medicare for families 
and younger generations so they can count on them, and it makes sure 
that we don't hollow out our defense. This is the only budget that 
balances. More importantly, it is the only budget that says that is not 
enough. It begins to pay down the national debt, and it says our goal 
in America will be to have a debt-free America. Think about that. After 
all these years of dangerous deficits, America could be debt free, 
economically the strongest in the world, and financially the strongest 
in the world.
  But today, if we don't change course, look what happens. Today, a 
baby born in Woodlands, Texas, their share of the debt is almost 
$50,000. A new baby owes Uncle Sam a Lexus. If we don't change our 
ways, by the time that child is 13, that child will owe Uncle Sam a 
second Lexus. By the time that child is 22, finishing college and 
beginning to start their life and live their dreams, they will owe 
Uncle Sam another Lexus.
  Now, the good news is young people don't actually buy luxury sedans 
for the Federal Government, but they pay the price in a very different 
way. All that debt slows the economy, so there will be fewer jobs for 
them to compete for; and all of that debt means higher taxes and higher 
interest rates, so there will be fewer jobs to compete for, and they 
will have less money in their paycheck as a result.
  Our Democrat friends say: that is fine, let's stay the course; let's 
not change anything; the economy is great; our deficits are fantastic, 
and our country is going the right direction.
  But that is not the truth in America today. We need to spend less as 
a government in a smart way. We need to grow the economy in a strong 
way. We can't ignore the challenges facing us. We have to save Medicare 
and Social Security. This is the budget that grows America's future and 
doesn't shrink it. This is the budget that America needs. We can't 
afford to stay the course.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 
minute.
  The gentleman from the great State of Texas says that the Republicans 
have been cutting the deficit, but the facts are different.
  Under President Clinton, we created a stunning 22 million jobs, and 
he left this country with a surplus. Under George Bush, in 8 years, he 
only created 1.2 million jobs and left us with a $1.4 trillion deficit. 
And in the 5 years that President Obama has been in office, he has 
created 4.7 million jobs, which is 5 times more than his predecessor 
did, and cut the deficit in half. So the record of cutting deficits is 
on the side of the Democratic administrations and policies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardenas), a newly elected Member and a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chairman, I have owned a business and know what it 
is like to be a job creator in this country, and I am very proud of it.
  This week, House Democrats introduced our budget alternative, a 
budget dedicated to the priorities of the American people: creating 
jobs, raising new ladders of opportunity, and building an economy that 
works for everyone. It is in stark contrast to the broken priorities of 
the Ryan budget. The Ryan budget will take $2,000 more in taxes away 
from American families--that is working class families--without closing 
one tax loophole for the corporate rich.
  The Ryan budget is an attack on seniors, students, workers, and 
middle class families, all for the sake of protecting loopholes for the 
wealthy and special interests. The budget will have a devastating 
impact on jobs. Republicans would lay waste to our commitments to 
education, lifesaving medical research, clean energy, modern 
infrastructure, and high-tech manufacturing. The Ryan budget will 
cripple our growth and surrender the future jobs of American kids to 
other nations like China, India, and Russia. The Ryan budget devastates 
our middle class.
  The Ryan budget even rejects comprehensive immigration reform. The 
Ryan budget denies people the important bipartisan legislation that 
would create 120,000 American jobs each year for the first 10 years 
should that legislation be passed and empower small businesses, spur 
innovation, supercharge the economy, and reduce the deficit by over 
$900 billion.
  The Ryan budget is nothing less than a job-killing recipe. Democrats 
are strengthening the middle class, embracing economic growth, and we 
want responsible deficit reduction. Comprehensive immigration reform is 
investing in the future and creating jobs for our future, creating jobs 
for Americans.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I might point out that President Bush did not leave this country with 
a deficit; Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues left this 
Nation with a deficit. And it continued to grow. The first year of 
their governance, the deficit doubled. The second year, it tripled. 
Then it went to a trillion dollars, trillion dollars, and trillion 
dollars. And only under a Republican House have we started to cut the 
growth in the deficit today.
  The truth is, on immigration reform, Democrats held the Presidency, 
the House and the Senate, and they did nothing. When it comes to 
reducing the deficit, they held the House, the Senate, and the White 
House, and they did nothing. When it comes time to grow the economy and 
give the middle class a fighting chance, they held the House and the 
Senate and the Presidency and did nothing.
  Let's not stay the course, because that has got us going the wrong 
direction. We need to change it. The Republican budget does that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. May I inquire how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, I was sitting in my office downstairs, and I 
heard Mr. Brady make the extraordinary claim that it was the Pelosi 
leadership that led to the doubling of deficits.
  I would remind the gentleman, as he ought to know and I am sure he 
does know, not a single economic plan was passed in 2007 or 2008 that 
changed the Bush economic plan, not a single bill. And to make the 
assertion that the deepest recession he and I have experienced, Mr. 
Chairman, in our lifetimes, which occurred under the Bush 
administration with Bush economic policies was somehow the 
responsibility of a Pelosi-led Congress is absolutely absurd, 
incorrect, and the gentleman ought to know better.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  You know, I know the facts hurt. I know they hurt, Mr. Whip. The 
deficit doubled the first year under Speaker Pelosi and your 
leadership.

[[Page 6014]]


  Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman refer to 2007?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. The deficit tripled under your leadership.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Texas has the time. The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I know the facts hurt. I know these deficits hurt 
real people. And I know the Democrats now want to revise history: they 
didn't create the deficits; they didn't create this slow economic 
recovery; everything is going great. But it is not.
  You created record deficits. You took what was turning into lower and 
lower deficits and a trend toward a balanced budget and you exploded 
it, and our American families are hurting today. Millions more can't 
find a job. Young people with college degrees are working behind a cash 
register. The deficits are frightening and scaring America. It came 
under Democrat leadership and it has continued under this Democrat 
Presidency. I know the facts hurt, but those are the facts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The facts speak for themselves. George Bush's administration left us 
with a $1.4 trillion deficit. They cut taxes, led us into two wars, and 
they blew the deficit.
  Look at the Democratic deficit. We had a surplus from Bill Clinton, 
and President Obama halved the deficit.
  I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I tell the gentleman from Texas, I do know the statistics: 
800,000 jobs lost in the last month of the Bush administration; 800,000 
jobs in 1 month, the worst job production since Herbert Hoover under 
the Bush administration.
  Yes, this administration has had tough times because we inherited 
such a struggling, devastated economy from the Bush administration. The 
gentleman knows those figures are accurate, and he ought to admit those 
facts.
  The budget deficit went up 87 percent under George Bush when he 
inherited a balanced budget. He inherited a balanced budget. The 
gentleman ought to be truthful with the American people, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The President doesn't allocate funding. He doesn't spend one dime 
Congress doesn't give him. A Republican Congress balanced the budget 
for President Clinton. And under President Bush, a Democrat Congress 
doubled and tripled and then went to trillion-dollar deficits. This 
Congress, your legislative branch, you passed a nearly trillion-dollar 
stimulus without one Republican vote. You passed trillions of dollars 
with the Affordable Care Act that has continued to destroy the economy 
and drive deficits even higher. That is the truth. Those are the facts. 
I know they hurt, but we are not revising history today. We are talking 
about changing the course of this country away from deficits, away from 
this second-rate economy toward a country that actually can grow, and 
grow stronger.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Chair again reminds Members to direct their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we don't have the time, but I 
would like to take the time at some point in time to discuss the facts 
with the gentleman from Texas, and I will take a Special Order out to 
do exactly that, to discuss the economic success of Democratic 
administrations and Republican administrations and bringing down the 
deficit.
  And let me say further, I will repeat to the gentleman, no change in 
the Bush economic program was affected in 2007 and 2008 because George 
Bush was the President and would have vetoed anything we passed. So the 
representation to the contrary, Mr. Chairman, is inaccurate.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Whip, I am your huckleberry. I will be glad to have the debate 
with you in a Special Order or anywhere else. The fact is this country 
is struggling. Your leadership has failed us as a Democrat governance 
in this White House. It is time to change course.
  The CHAIR. Again, the Chair would remind Members to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just say: When do you stop blaming the former President? For 
goodness' sake, we are in the fifth year of the Obama Presidency. Here 
is the problem. The first year of Ronald Reagan's second term, the 
growth rate, the economic growth rate, was 7\1/2\ percent. For 
goodness' sake. Ronald Reagan was able to turn things around that 
quickly. We are meandering along, bouncing along at a pathetic 2 
percent growth rate. We could be so much better if we had the right 
policies in place and pass the right kind of budget and the right kind 
of vision for the country. That is the point the gentleman is making. 
Quit blaming George Bush. We are in the fifth year of the Obama 
Presidency. If you want to look to a comparison: the fifth year of 
Ronald Reagan's Presidency, a 7\1/2\ percent growth rate.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as 
to how much is remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 1 minute remaining. The 
gentleman from Texas has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Our economy is recovering from the depths of the Great Recession, but 
too many Americans are still left behind. This budget kicks them even 
further back with draconian cuts. We were sent here to create jobs, not 
eliminate them.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Ryan austerity plan 
would slow our economy and cost us jobs over the next 3 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget would make life harder for the 
vulnerable Americans from cradle to grave. It represents a choice to be 
less competitive and less compassionate.
  Voting for this budget is voting to slow our recovery, lower our 
hopes, and dim our dreams. It is not a budget; it is a retreat, and 
Americans deserve better.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this draconian Republican 
budget, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I would inquire of the gentlelady if you would 
like to make your concluding remarks, or have you done so?
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I have made mine within the 
timeframe we had.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I will close out as well, and I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, if you like the direction the country is going, I guess 
there is no reason to change. If we want young people who don't believe 
they will ever earn as much or have a standard of living as their 
parents do, let's just stay the course. If we want a Nation with a 
second-rate economy where millions of people have given up looking for 
work, where the average family is missing over $1,000 every month from 
their paycheck, let's just stay the course. If we want a Nation that 
continues that debt and debt and debt and debt--we are now becoming 
financially weaker each year rather than financially stronger--well 
then let's stay the course. If you want a Medicare and Social Security 
that a lot of younger people have given up hope will be there for them 
and many seniors are worried won't last for them either, well then 
let's just stay the course. And if we want a President who will hollow 
out our defense and our intelligence, who

[[Page 6015]]

will continue to waste money the taxpayers have earned, then let's just 
stay that course.
  Or we can take a different direction for this Nation. We can impose 
smart spending cuts that actually get us back toward a balanced budget. 
We can grow the economy through tax reform and balanced regulation that 
actually gets Main Street pumping again, gives people hope again.
  We believe there is a brighter future for America, but first it 
starts with living within our means, it begins with growing this 
economy, and it concludes with increasing the wages of women and men 
and fathers and sons and young people and women and minorities who now 
today have given up hope.
  The Republican budget is about opportunity. It is about not giving up 
on America, it is about not settling for a second-rate economy in a 
financially strapped Nation that can no longer compete against China, 
Brazil, Europe, and our other competitors around the world. It really 
is about changing the direction of this Nation in a way that gives 
power to people, that gives power to Main Street, gives power to middle 
class families rather than taking it all for Washington.
  We know the path we are on isn't working. We can no longer stay the 
course. It is time to change so the Republican budget spends less, 
grows the economy, solves the biggest challenges in America, and gives 
us hope that America can continue to be the strongest economy in the 
world through the next 100 years.
  That is the goal America should be setting, that is the direction the 
Republican budget puts in place. It uses two smart, I think, 
revolutionary ideas: dynamic scoring, so we know the real-life effect 
of this budget and our growth; it focuses on controllable spending as a 
percentage of the economy, that is the right way to measure how we are 
doing as a Nation; and it uses a number of innovative approaches, 
again, to grow the economy, to shrink the deficit, and what I like most 
of all, it doesn't merely balance the budget, it puts us on a path to a 
debt-free America. That is something that can give us hope, that can 
give us opportunity, that is the direction that we ought to go.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for debate 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. 96

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

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

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

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                 TITLE II--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Sec. 201. Long-term budgeting.

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

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

                 TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 401. Direct spending.

                      TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 501. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 502. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 503. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate 
              budgetary levels.
Sec. 504. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 505. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 506. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 507. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 508. Transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to the 
              Highway Trust Fund that increase public indebtedness.
Sec. 509. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/
              global war on terrorism.
Sec. 510. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                      TITLE VI--POLICY STATEMENTS

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2015 through 2024:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,533,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,676,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,789,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $2,890,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,014,685,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,148,637,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,294,650,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,456,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,626,518,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,807,452,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $0.
       Fiscal year 2016: $0.
       Fiscal year 2017: $0.
       Fiscal year 2018: $0.
       Fiscal year 2019: $0.
       Fiscal year 2020: $0.
       Fiscal year 2021: $0.
       Fiscal year 2022: $0.
       Fiscal year 2023: $0.
       Fiscal year 2024: $0.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of 
     total new budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,842,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,858,059,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,957,321,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,059,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,210,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,360,435,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,460,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,587,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,660,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,706,695,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels of total 
     budget outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,920,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,889,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,949,261,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,034,773,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,185,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,320,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,433,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,577,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,632,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $3,676,374,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this concurrent resolution, the amounts of the deficits 
     (on-budget) are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: -$386,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$213,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$159,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$144,466,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$170,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$172,290,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$138,741,000,000.

[[Page 6016]]

       Fiscal year 2022: -$121,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$6,124,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $131,078,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,304,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,627,533,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,172,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $19,411,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $19,773,917,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $20,227,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $20,449,374,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $20,822,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $20,981,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $21,089,365,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,213,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,419,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $13,800,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $13,860,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $14,080,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $14,427,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $14,579,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $14,940,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $15,080,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $15,176,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $528,927,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $566,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $573,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,064,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $597,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $584,252,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $611,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $593,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $624,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $611,902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $638,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $626,175,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $640,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $669,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $661,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $687,393,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $672,922,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $706,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $685,796,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,029,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,229,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,589,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,822,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,513,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,497,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,114,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,004,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,349,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,624,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,927,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,413,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,096,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,589,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,174,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,304,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,751,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,762,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,788,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,851,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$16,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$1,914,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,188,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,699,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,491,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,204,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,047,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,859,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,169,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,428,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,379,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,979,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,927,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,733,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,592,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,752,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,042,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,313,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,506,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,008,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,249,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,131,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$14,762,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$18,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$7,385,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,136,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$6,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$3,937,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,034,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$20,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$4,794,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,073,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,118,000,000.

[[Page 6017]]

       (B) Outlays, -$25,793,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,713,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $75,199,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,501,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,163,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $78,373,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $79,056,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,369,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $80,231,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $80,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $81,409,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $81,829,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $82,872,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $83,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,024,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,303,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,283,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,008,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,421,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,408,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,954,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,910,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,908,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $82,372,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,699,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,137,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,278,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $86,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $86,555,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $87,130,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $87,749,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $88,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,167,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $89,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,661,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $91,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $92,926,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,799,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $370,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $377,752,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $375,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $376,732,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $377,346,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $390,437,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $390,404,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $415,814,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $405,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $419,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $418,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $433,512,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $432,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $449,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $447,991,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $472,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $471,312,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $519,196,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $519,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $558,895,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $558,964,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,144,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,341,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $590,695,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $591,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $651,579,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $651,878,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $692,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $692,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $737,455,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $738,042,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $815,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $817,195,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $836,296,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $837,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $859,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $866,262,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $505,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $505,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $487,645,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $490,122,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $489,766,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $487,105,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $492,129,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $484,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $493,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $490,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $512,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $508,689,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $520,016,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $515,475,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $529,438,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $529,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $530,839,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $525,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $515,225,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $153,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $152,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,807,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $163,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,269,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $161,646,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $173,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $179,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,380,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $195,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $194,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,292,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $188,262,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):

[[Page 6018]]

       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,011,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,298,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,405,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,239,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,146,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,263,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,967,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,411,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,455,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,568,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,710,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,618,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,064,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,040,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,582,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,353,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,691,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,491,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $365,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $365,987,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $416,238,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $416,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $482,228,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $482,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $553,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $553,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $611,852,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $611,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,310,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,310,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $693,159,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $693,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $723,805,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $723,805,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $751,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $751,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $770,124,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $770,124,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$36,364,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$22,676,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$47,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$36,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$51,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$45,014,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$54,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$49,571,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$56,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$61,825,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$58,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$64,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$61,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$66,871,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$63,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$68,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$66,322,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$65,972,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,338,000,000.
       (20) Government-wide savings (930):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,904,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$14,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$30,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$17,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$38,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$27,789,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$46,446,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$35,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$55,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$44,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$63,060,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$53,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$75,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$64,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$87,334,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$75,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$117,125,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$96,353,000,000.
       (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,652,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,652,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,974,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,974,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$84,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$84,602,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$91,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$91,824,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$93,787,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$93,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$98,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$98,176,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,529,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$105,731,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$105,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$113,422,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$113,422,000,000.
       (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
     Terrorism (970):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,823,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,893,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $4,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $1,827,000,000.

                 TITLE II--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

     SEC. 201. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

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

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 301. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE 
                   LAWS.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in

[[Page 6019]]

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

     SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REFORM OF THE 
                   2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that reforms or replaces the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care 
     and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure 
     would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 
     2015 through 2024.

     SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE 
                   MEDICARE PROVISIONS OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE 
                   LAWS.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that repeals all or part of the 
     decreases in Medicare spending included in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 
     through 2024.

     SEC. 304. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE 
                   GROWTH RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that includes provisions 
     amending or superseding the system for updating payments 
     under section 1848 of the Social Security Act, if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for the period of 
     fiscal years 2015 through 2024.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 307. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES.

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

     SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND 
                   SCHOOLS.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary 
     effects of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that makes changes to or 
     provides for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools 
     and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
     393) by the amounts provided by that legislation for those 
     purposes, if such legislation requires sustained yield timber 
     harvests obviating the need for funding under Public Law 106-
     393 in the future and would not increase the deficit or 
     direct spending for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 
     2019, or the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.

     SEC. 309. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure maintains the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, but 
     only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the 
     period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.

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

       In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, 
     or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such 
     measure reforms policies and programs to reduce poverty and 
     increase opportunity and upward mobility, but only if such 
     measure would neither adversely impact job creation nor 
     increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2015 
     through 2024.

                 TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 401. DIRECT SPENDING.

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

                      TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in 
     subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
     thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
     appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
     advance appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided 
     for programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to 
     in subsection

[[Page 6020]]

     (c)(1) or identified in the report to accompany this 
     concurrent resolution or the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers to accompany this concurrent resolution under the 
     heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
       (c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2016, the aggregate level 
     of advance appropriations shall not exceed--
       (1) $58,662,202,000 for the following programs in the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs--
       (A) Medical Services;
       (B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
       (C) Medical Facilities accounts of the Veterans Health 
     Administration; and
       (2) $28,781,000,000 in new budget authority for all 
     programs identified pursuant to subsection (b).
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, making general appropriations 
     or any new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill 
     or joint resolution making continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2016.

     SEC. 502. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

       Upon the enactment of any bill or joint resolution 
     providing for a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, 
     the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     concurrent resolution accordingly.

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

       (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending 
     Levels.--If a committee (other than the Committee on 
     Appropriations) reports a bill or joint resolution, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, providing for 
     a decrease in direct spending (budget authority and outlays 
     flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year and also provides for 
     an authorization of appropriations for the same purpose, upon 
     the enactment of such measure, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may decrease the allocation to such committee and 
     increase the allocation of discretionary spending (budget 
     authority and outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on 
     Appropriations for fiscal year 2015 by an amount equal to the 
     new budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) provided 
     for in a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for 
     the same purpose.
       (b) Adjustments to Fund Overseas Contingency Operations/
     Global War on Terrorism.--In order to take into account any 
     new information included in the budget submission by the 
     President for fiscal year 2015, the chair of the Committee on 
     the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other 
     appropriate budgetary levels for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism or the section 302(a) 
     allocation to the Committee on Appropriations set forth in 
     the report of this concurrent resolution to conform with 
     section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted by section 251A of such 
     Act).
       (c) Revised Congressional Budget Office Baseline.--The 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary 
     levels to reflect changes resulting from technical and 
     economic assumptions in the most recent baseline published by 
     the Congressional Budget Office.
       (d) Determinations.--For the purpose of enforcing this 
     concurrent resolution on the budget in the House, the 
     allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority, 
     outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, 
     revenues, deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2015 and 
     the period of fiscal years 2015 through fiscal year 2024 
     shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget and such chair may 
     adjust such applicable levels of this concurrent resolution.

     SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

       (a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to 
     consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     (other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment 
     thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of 
     such measure have the net effect of increasing direct 
     spending in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of 
     this section are any of the four consecutive ten fiscal-year 
     periods beginning with fiscal year 2025.

     SEC. 505. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the report accompanying 
     this concurrent resolution on the budget or the joint 
     explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its 
     allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for 
     the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social 
     Security Administration and the United States Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f) 
     and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of 
     the level of total new budget authority and total outlays 
     provided by a measure shall include any off-budget 
     discretionary amounts.
       (c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels for legislation reported by the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform that reforms the Federal retirement 
     system, if such adjustments do not cause a net increase in 
     the deficit for fiscal year 2015 and the period of fiscal 
     years 2015 through 2024.

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

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of the allocations, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels made pursuant to 
     this concurrent resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in 
     this concurrent resolution.
       (c) Budget Compliance.--The consideration of any bill or 
     joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     makes adjustments or revisions in the allocations, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels of this concurrent 
     resolution shall not be subject to the points of order set 
     forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives or section 504.

     SEC. 507. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.

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

     SEC. 508. TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY TO 
                   THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC 
                   INDEBTEDNESS.

       For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or 
     the rules or orders of the House of Representatives, a bill 
     or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that transfers funds from the general fund of 
     the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund shall be counted as 
     new budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the 
     transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs.

[[Page 6021]]



     SEC. 509. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                   OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

       (a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate 
     allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas 
     contingency operations/global war on terrorism. For purposes 
     of enforcing such separate allocation under section 302(f) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal 
     year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be deemed to 
     refer to fiscal year 2015. Such separate allocation shall be 
     the exclusive allocation for overseas contingency operations/
     global war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such Act. 
     Section 302(c) of such Act shall not apply to such separate 
     allocation. The Committee on Appropriations may provide 
     suballocations of such separate allocation under section 
     302(b) of such Act. Spending that counts toward the 
     allocation established by this section shall be designated 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection 
     (a) for fiscal year 2015, no adjustment shall be made under 
     section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any 
     adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.

     SEC. 510. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

                      TITLE VI--POLICY STATEMENTS

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

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

     SEC. 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, and 
     promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The United 
     States tax code fails on all three counts - it is notoriously 
     complex, patently unfair, and highly inefficient. The tax 
     code's complexity distorts decisions to work, save, and 
     invest, which leads to slower economic growth, lower wages, 
     and less job creation.
       (2) Over the past decade alone, there have been more than 
     4,400 changes to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of 
     the major changes over the years have involved carving out 
     special preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various 
     activities or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 
     trillion per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and 
     highly complex.
       (3) In addition, these tax preferences are 
     disproportionately used by upper-income individuals.
       (4) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the 
     code end up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base, in 
     turn, requires much higher tax rates to raise a given amount 
     of revenue.
       (5) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up spending 
     $160 billion and roughly 6 billion hours a year complying 
     with the tax code - a waste of time and resources that could 
     be used in more productive activities.
       (6) Standard economic theory shows that high marginal tax 
     rates dampen the incentives to work, save, and invest, which 
     reduces economic output and job creation. Lower economic 
     output, in turn, mutes the intended revenue gain from higher 
     marginal tax rates.
       (7) Roughly half of United States active business income 
     and half of private sector employment are derived from 
     business entities (such as partnerships, S corporations, and 
     sole proprietorships) that are taxed on a ``pass-through'' 
     basis, meaning the income flows through to the tax returns of 
     the individual owners and is taxed at the individual rate 
     structure rather than at the corporate rate. Small 
     businesses, in particular, tend to choose this form for 
     Federal tax purposes, and the top Federal rate on such small 
     business income reaches 44.6 percent. For these reasons, 
     sound economic policy requires lowering marginal rates on 
     these pass-through entities.
       (8) The United States corporate income tax rate (including 
     Federal, State, and local taxes) sums to just over 39 
     percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Tax 
     rates this high suppress wages and discourage investment and 
     job creation, distort business activity, and put American 
     businesses at a competitive disadvantage with foreign 
     competitors.
       (9) By deterring potential investment, the United States 
     corporate tax restrains economic growth and job creation. The 
     United States tax rate differential with other countries also 
     fosters a variety of complicated multinational corporate 
     behaviors intended to avoid the tax, which have the effect of 
     moving the tax base offshore, destroying American jobs, and 
     decreasing corporate revenue.
       (10) The ``worldwide'' structure of United States 
     international taxation essentially taxes earnings of United 
     States firms twice, putting them at a significant competitive 
     disadvantage with competitors with more competitive 
     international tax systems.
       (11) Reforming the United States tax code to a more 
     competitive international system would boost the 
     competitiveness of United States companies operating abroad 
     and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.

[[Page 6022]]

       (12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers through 
     lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and on investors 
     in diminished returns.
       (13) Revenues have averaged about 17.5 percent of the 
     economy throughout modern American history. Revenues rise 
     above this level under current law to 18.4 percent of the 
     economy by the end of the 10-year budget window.
       (14) Attempting to raise revenue through tax increases to 
     meet out-of-control spending would damage the economy.
       (15) This resolution also rejects the idea of instituting a 
     carbon tax in the United States, which some have offered as a 
     ``new'' source of revenue. Such a plan would damage the 
     economy, cost jobs, and raise prices on American consumers.
       (16) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not 
     constitute fundamental tax reform.
       (17) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate 
     loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the 
     board--not to fund more wasteful Government spending. Tax 
     reform should be revenue-neutral and should not be an excuse 
     to raise taxes on the American people. Washington has a 
     spending problem, not a revenue problem.
       (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should enact legislation that 
     provides for a comprehensive reform of the United States tax 
     code to promote economic growth, create American jobs, 
     increase wages, and benefit American consumers, investors, 
     and workers through revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform 
     that--
       (1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to American 
     families and businesses and reduces the amount of time and 
     resources necessary to comply with tax laws;
       (2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals, with a 
     goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25 percent and 
     consolidating the current seven individual income tax 
     brackets into two brackets with a first bracket of 10 
     percent;
       (3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
       (4) reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent; and
       (5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive system 
     of international taxation.

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

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

     SEC. 604. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare for 
     their health security.
       (2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly recommended 
     that Medicare's long-term financial challenges be addressed 
     soon. Each year without reform, the financial condition of 
     Medicare becomes more precarious and the threat to those in 
     or near retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office--
       (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in 
     2026 and unable to pay scheduled benefits; and
       (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than the economy 
     and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a rate of 6 
     percent per year over the next ten years, and according to 
     the Congressional Budget Office's 2013 Long-Term Budget 
     Outlook, spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent 
     of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2040 and 9.4 percent of 
     GDP by 2088.
       (3) The President's health care law created a new Federal 
     agency called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) 
     empowered with unilateral authority to cut Medicare spending. 
     As a result of that law--
       (A) IPAB will be tasked with keeping the Medicare per 
     capita growth below a Medicare per capita target growth rate. 
     Prior to 2018, the target growth rate is based on the five-
     year average of overall inflation and medical inflation. 
     Beginning in 2018, the target growth rate will be the five-
     year average increase in the nominal GDP plus one percentage 
     point, which the President has twice proposed to reduce to 
     GDP plus one-half percentage point;
       (B) the fifteen unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats of 
     IPAB will make decisions that will reduce seniors access to 
     care;
       (C) the nonpartisan Office of the Medicare Chief Actuary 
     estimates that the provider cuts already contained in the 
     Affordable Care Act will force 15 percent of hospitals, 
     skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies to 
     become unprofitable in 2019; and
       (D) additional cuts from the IPAB board will force even 
     more health care providers to close their doors, and the 
     Board should be repealed.
       (4) Failing to address this problem will leave millions of 
     American seniors without adequate health security and younger 
     generations burdened with enormous debt to pay for spending 
     levels that cannot be sustained.
       (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution to protect those in or near retirement from any 
     disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future 
     beneficiaries the same health care options available to 
     Members of Congress.
       (c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the 
     Medicare program such that:
       (1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in or 
     near retirement.
       (2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, 
     Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and 
     a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which 
     recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.
       (3) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-service as 
     an option.
       (4) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower-
     income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks.
       (5) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
     Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

     SEC. 605. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
     disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. Since 
     enactment, Social Security has served as a vital leg on the 
     ``three-legged stool'' of retirement security, which includes 
     employer provided pensions as well as personal savings.
       (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has repeatedly 
     recommended that Social Security's long-term financial 
     challenges be

[[Page 6023]]

     addressed soon. Each year without reform, the financial 
     condition of Social Security becomes more precarious and the 
     threat to seniors and those receiving Social Security 
     disability benefits becomes more pronounced:
       (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be 
     exhausted and program revenues will be unable to pay 
     scheduled benefits.
       (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and Survivors and 
     Disability Trust Funds will be exhausted, and program 
     revenues will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
       (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 2033, 
     benefits will be cut nearly 25 percent across the board, 
     devastating those currently in or near retirement and those 
     who rely on Social Security the most.
       (3) The recession and continued low economic growth have 
     exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing Social Security. 
     The most recent CBO projections find that Social Security 
     will run cash deficits of $1.7 trillion over the next 10 
     years.
       (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security for a 
     larger proportion of their retirement income. Therefore, 
     reforms should take into consideration the need to protect 
     lower-income Americans' retirement security.
       (5) The Disability Insurance program provides an essential 
     income safety net for those with disabilities and their 
     families. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 
     between 1970 and 2012, the number of people receiving 
     disability benefits (both disabled workers and their 
     dependent family members) has increased by over 300 percent 
     from 2.7 million to over 10.9 million. This increase is not 
     due strictly to population growth or decreases in health. 
     David Autor and Mark Duggan have found that the increase in 
     individuals on disability does not reflect a decrease in 
     self-reported health. CBO attributes program growth to 
     changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the 
     labor force and compensation, as well as Federal policies.
       (6) If this program is not reformed, families who rely on 
     the lifeline that disability benefits provide will face 
     benefit cuts of up to 25 percent in 2016, devastating 
     individuals who need assistance the most.
       (7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed on a 
     bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan 
     Commission'' which helped to address Social Security 
     shortfalls for over a generation.
       (8) Americans deserve action by the President, the House, 
     and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social Security. It 
     is critical that bipartisan action be taken to address the 
     looming insolvency of Social Security. In this spirit, this 
     resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to find solutions 
     by requiring policymakers to ensure that Social Security 
     remains a critical part of the safety net.
       (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
     make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution 
     assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
       (1) If in any year the Board of Trustees of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual Trustees Report 
     determines that the 75-year actuarial balance of the Social 
     Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the annual balance of 
     the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th year is in 
     deficit, the Board of Trustees shall, no later than September 
     30 of the same calendar year, submit to the President 
     recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to achieve a 
     positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive annual 
     balance in the 75th-year. Recommendations provided to the 
     President must be agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the 
     Board of Trustees.
       (2) Not later than December 1 of the same calendar year in 
     which the Board of Trustees submit their recommendations, the 
     President shall promptly submit implementing legislation to 
     both Houses of Congress including his recommendations 
     necessary to achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and 
     a positive annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority 
     Leader of the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House 
     shall introduce the President's legislation upon receipt.
       (3) Within 60 days of the President submitting legislation, 
     the committees of jurisdiction to which the legislation has 
     been referred shall report the bill which shall be considered 
     by the full House or Senate under expedited procedures.
       (4) Legislation submitted by the President shall--
       (A) protect those in or near retirement;
       (B) preserve the safety net for those who count on Social 
     Security the most, including those with disabilities and 
     survivors;
       (C) improve fairness for participants;
       (D) reduce the burden on, and provide certainty for, future 
     generations; and
       (E) secure the future of the Disability Insurance program 
     while addressing the needs of those with disabilities today 
     and improving the determination process.
       (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of 
     this resolution that Congress and the President should enact 
     legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability 
     Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should 
     not raid the Social Security retirement system without 
     reforms to the Disability Insurance system.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6024]]

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

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

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

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

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') is 
     required by law to identify examples of waste, duplication, 
     and overlap in Federal programs, and has so identified dozens 
     of such examples.
       (2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform, the Comptroller General has stated that 
     addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in 
     Federal programs ``could potentially save tens of billions of 
     dollars.''
       (3) In 2011, 2012, and 2013 the Government Accountability 
     Office issued reports showing excessive duplication and 
     redundancy in Federal programs including--
       (A) 209 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
     education programs in 13 different Federal agencies at a cost 
     of $3 billion annually;
       (B) 200 separate Department of Justice crime prevention and 
     victim services grant programs with an annual cost of $3.9 
     billion in 2010;
       (C) 20 different Federal entities administer 160 housing 
     programs and other forms of Federal assistance for housing 
     with a total cost of $170 billion in 2010;
       (D) 17 separate Homeland Security preparedness grant 
     programs that spent $37 billion between fiscal year 2011 and 
     2012;
       (E) 14 grant and loan programs, and 3 tax benefits to 
     reduce diesel emissions;
       (F) 94 different initiatives run by 11 different agencies 
     to encourage ``green building'' in the private sector; and
       (G) 23 agencies implemented approximately 670 renewable 
     energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010 at a cost of nearly 
     $15 billion.
       (4) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion each 
     year for approximately 800 information technology 
     investments. GAO has identified broad acquisition failures, 
     waste, and unnecessary duplication in the Government's 
     information technology infrastructure. Experts have estimated 
     that eliminating these problems could save 25 percent - or 
     $20 billion - of the Government's annual information 
     technology budget.
       (5) GAO has identified strategic sourcing as a potential 
     source of spending reductions. In 2011 GAO estimated that 
     saving 10 percent of the total or all Federal procurement 
     could generate over $50 billion in savings annually.
       (6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108 billion in 
     improper payments in fiscal year 2012.
       (7) Under clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least 
     one hearing during each 120 day period following its 
     establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in 
     Government programs.
       (8) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal 
     year 2015, 32 laws will expire, possibly resulting in $693 
     billion in unauthorized appropriations. Timely 
     reauthorizations of these laws would ensure assessments of 
     program justification and effectiveness.
       (9) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs should result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Reduction of 
     Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each authorizing 
     committee annually shall include in its Views and Estimates 
     letter required under section 301(d) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 recommendations to the Committee on the 
     Budget of programs within the jurisdiction of such committee 
     whose funding should be reduced or eliminated.

     SEC. 610. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING.

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

     SEC. 611. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job 
     creation and dampened the economy, slowing our recovery from 
     the economic recession.
       (2) In the first two months of 2014 alone, the 
     Administration issued 13,166 pages of regulations imposing 
     more than $13 billion in compliance costs on job creators and 
     adding more than 16 million hours of compliance paperwork.
       (3) The Small Business Administration estimates that the 
     total cost of regulations is as high as $1.75 trillion per 
     year. Since 2009, the White House has generated over $494 
     billion in regulatory activity, with an additional $87.6 
     billion in regulatory costs currently pending.
       (4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation (Public 
     Law 111-203) resulted in more than $17 billion in compliance 
     costs and saddled job creators with more than 58 million 
     hours of compliance paperwork.
       (5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to date has 
     added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance paperwork, 
     imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs on the private 
     sector and an $8 billion cost burden on the states.
       (6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules issued by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); these regulations 
     are primarily targeted at the coal industry. In September 
     2013, the EPA proposed a rule regulating greenhouse gas 
     emissions from new coal-fired power plants. The proposed 
     standards are unachievable with current commercially 
     available technology, resulting in a de-facto ban on new 
     coal-fired power plants. Additional regulations for existing 
     coal plants are expected in the summer of 2014.
       (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly forty percent 
     of the United States electricity at a low cost. Unfairly 
     targeting the coal industry with costly and unachievable 
     regulations will increase energy prices, disproportionately 
     disadvantaging energy-intensive industries like manufacturing 
     and construction, and will make life more difficult for 
     millions of low-income and middle class families already 
     struggling to pay their bills.
       (8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being retired 
     or converted as a result of EPA regulations. Combined with 
     the de-facto prohibition on new plants, these retirements and 
     conversions may further increase the cost of electricity.
       (9) A recent study by Purdue University estimates that 
     electricity prices in Indiana will rise 32 percent by 2023, 
     due in part to EPA regulations.
       (10) The Heritage Foundation recently found that a phase 
     out of coal would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 2023, 
     resulting in an aggregate gross domestic product decrease of 
     $2.23 trillion over the entire period and reducing the income 
     of a family of four by $1200 per year. Of these jobs, 330,000 
     will come from the manufacturing sector, with California, 
     Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, 
     Indiana, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the 
     highest job losses.
       (b) Policy on Federal Regulation.--It is the policy of this 
     resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the 
     public burdened by excessive regulation, enact legislation 
     that--

[[Page 6025]]

       (1) seeks to promote economic growth and job creation by 
     eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and 
     simplifying Federal regulations;
       (2) pursues a cost-effective approach to regulation, 
     without sacrificing environmental, health, safety benefits or 
     other benefits, rejecting the premise that economic growth 
     and environmental protection create an either/or proposition;
       (3) ensures that regulations do not disproportionately 
     disadvantage low-income Americans through a more rigorous 
     cost-benefit analysis, which also considers who will be most 
     affected by regulations and whether the harm caused is 
     outweighed by the potential harm prevented;
       (4) ensures that regulations are subject to an open and 
     transparent process, rely on sound and publicly available 
     scientific data, and that the data relied upon for any 
     particular regulation is provided to Congress immediately 
     upon request;
       (5) frees the many commonsense energy and water projects 
     currently trapped in complicated bureaucratic approval 
     processes;
       (6) maintains the benefits of landmark environmental, 
     health safety, and other statutes while scaling back this 
     administration's heavy-handed approach to regulation, which 
     has added $494 billion in mostly ideological regulatory 
     activity since 2009, much of which flies in the face of these 
     statutes' intended purposes; and
       (7) seeks to promote a limited government, which will 
     unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs, 
     providing our Nation with a strong and prosperous future and 
     expanding opportunities for the generations to come.

     SEC. 612. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE.

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

     SEC. 613. NO BUDGET, NO PAY.

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

  The CHAIR. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in 
House Report 113-405.
  Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. The adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent 
resolution for amendment.
  After conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
amendment, there shall be a final period of general debate which shall 
not exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.


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

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 113-405.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

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

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2015 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2024.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:
       Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
           2015.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                       TITLE II--DIRECT SPENDING

       Sec. 201. Direct spending.

                      TITLE III--POLICY STATEMENT

       Sec. 301. Policy statement on Presidential data and 
           policies.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2015 through 2024:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this concurrent resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,579,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,756,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,960,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,131,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,281,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,465,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,663,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,860,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,069,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,283,190,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $84,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $107,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $152,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $175,856,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $158,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $171,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $190,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $207,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $231,085,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $249,190,000,000.
       (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: $3,207,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,269,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,415,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,577,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,782,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,978,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,151,262,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,341,912,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,509,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,671,785,000,000.
       (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: $3,143,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,291,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,409,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,527,332,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,752,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,923,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,103,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,309,637,000,000.

[[Page 6026]]

       Fiscal year 2023: $4,443,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,580,858,000,000.
       (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: -$563,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$534,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$448,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$395,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$471,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$458,094,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$440,075,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$449,351,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$374,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$297,668,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,686,049,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,486,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $20,239,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,940,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,652,866,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $22,361,537,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $23,052,216,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $23,737,820,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $24,380,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $24,980,565,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,591,802,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,256,587,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,843,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,370,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,981,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,602,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $17,213,324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $17,849,633,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $18,440,724,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $18,986,039,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $636,642,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $631,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $569,176,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $592,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $577,059,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,212,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $586,290,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $594,400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $585,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $603,536,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $591,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $612,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $601,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $622,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $610,434,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $637,407,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $623,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $654,543,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $638,219,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,992,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,086,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,823,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,886,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,001,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,630,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,938,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,175,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,842,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,619,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,372,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,552,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,661,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,605,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,735,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,839,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,872,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,098,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,517,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,296,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,268,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,032,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,119,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,829,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,963,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,174,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,620,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,540,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,039,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,149,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,689,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,599,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,711,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,046,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,134,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,218,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,274,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,224,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,041,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,809,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,483,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,070,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,070,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,728,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,865,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,241,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,866,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,120,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,031,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,805,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,774,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,050,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,721,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,482,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,284,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,017,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,045,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,791,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,019,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,719,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,297,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,775,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,363,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,773,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,597,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$30,472,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$2,488,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$31,493,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,541,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$32,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$5,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$34,779,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $649,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,473,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:

[[Page 6027]]

       (A) New budget authority, $9,876,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$23,010,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,504,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$19,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$24,415,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,237,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$26,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$28,684,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $103,036,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $97,825,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,006,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,309,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,507,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,642,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,134,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,375,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,760,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,156,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,607,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $100,883,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,026,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,516,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $98,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $98,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $99,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,274,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $102,224,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,452,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,865,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,931,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,755,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,975,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,398,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,834,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,197,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,767,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,394,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,897,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $119,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $112,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,357,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,847,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $123,214,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $120,107,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,460,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $124,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $129,820,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $132,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,395,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,231,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $133,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,157,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,733,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $522,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $512,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $547,922,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $549,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,302,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $596,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $597,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $626,796,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $627,997,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $668,279,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $657,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $690,729,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $689,115,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $727,139,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $724,669,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $765,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $763,167,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $804,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $802,627,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,454,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $532,324,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $574,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $574,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $581,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $581,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $595,126,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $594,983,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $654,304,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $696,643,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $696,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $743,885,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $743,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $824,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $823,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $850,147,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $849,958,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $870,141,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $869,945,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $535,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $546,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $549,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $551,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $548,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $558,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $547,955,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $577,957,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $590,235,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $582,713,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $603,845,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,615,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $622,482,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $619,967,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $631,837,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $623,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $625,245,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,246,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,388,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,811,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,391,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,391,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,076,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,867,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,867,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,794,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,591,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,591,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $161,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $158,524,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $169,322,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $175,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,648,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $190,186,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,063,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $198,298,000,000.

[[Page 6028]]

       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $209,647,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $206,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $218,987,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $228,415,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $225,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $238,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $224,121,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,036,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,843,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,559,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,934,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,223,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $59,331,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,986,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,190,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,118,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,171,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,464,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,550,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,139,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,077,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $38,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,316,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,131,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,007,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,944,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $348,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $348,074,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $410,576,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $410,576,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $483,679,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $483,679,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $565,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $565,227,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $641,890,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $641,890,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $705,785,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $705,785,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $759,722,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $759,722,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $807,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $807,961,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $855,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $855,812,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $894,074,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $894,074,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,644,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,315,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,795,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,398,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,284,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,613,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,761,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,563,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,051,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,470,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,717,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,662,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,591,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$79,627,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$79,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$87,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$87,634,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$86,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$86,614,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,742,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,742,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$82,803,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$82,803,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,164,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,164,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$85,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$85,610,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$88,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$88,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,601,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$92,827,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$92,827,000,000.

                       TITLE II--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 estimate average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending:
       (A) Earned Income Tax Credit Reforms:
       (i) Expand EITC for workers without qualifying children.
       (ii) Conform treatment of State and local government EITC 
     and child tax credit (CTC) for SSI.
       (B) Health-Related:
       (i) Align Medicare drug payment policies with Medicaid 
     policies for low income beneficiaries.
       (ii) Increase income-related premium under Medicare Parts B 
     and D.
       (iii) Modify Part B deductible for new enrollees.
       (iv) Introduce home health co-payments for new 
     beneficiaries.
       (v) Introduce a Part B premium surcharge for new 
     beneficiaries who purchase near first-dollar Medigap 
     coverage.
       (vi) Encourage the use of generic drugs by low-income 
     beneficiaries.
       (vii) Limit Medicaid reimbursement of durable medical 
     equipment based on Medicare rates.
       (viii) Rebase future Medicaid Disproportionate Share 
     Hospital (DSH) allotments.
       (ix) Reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicaid.
       (x) Strengthen the Medicaid drug rebate program.
       (xi) Exclude brand-name and authorized generic drug prices 
     from Medicaid Federal upper limit (FUL).
       (xii) Improve and extend the Money Follows the Person 
     Rebalancing Demonstration through 2020.
       (xiii) Provide home and community-based services to 
     children eligible for psychiatric residential treatment 
     facilities.
       (xiv) Create demonstration to address over-prescription of 
     psychotropic medications for children in foster care.
       (xv) Permanently extend Express Lane Eligibility (ELE) 
     option for children.
       (xvi) Expand State flexibility to provide benchmark benefit 
     packages.
       (xvii) Extend the Qualified Individuals (QI) program 
     through CY2015.
       (xviii) Extend the Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) 
     program through CY2015.
       (xix) Prohibit brand and generic drug companies from 
     delaying the availability of new generic drugs and biologics.
       (xx) Modify length of exclusivity to facilitate faster 
     development of generic biologics.
       (xxi) Ensure retroactive Part D coverage of newly-eligible 
     low-income beneficiaries.
       (xxii) Establish integrated appeals process for Medicare-
     Medicaid enrollees.
       (xxiii) Create pilot to expand PACE eligibility to 
     individuals between ages 21 and 55.
       (xxiv) Accelerate the issuance of State innovation waivers.
       (b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average rate 
     of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 5.7 percent.

[[Page 6029]]

       (2) For nonmeans-test direct spending, the estimated 
     average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during 
     the 10-year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 
     percent under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending:
       (A) Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative:
       (i) Reduce subsidies for crop insurance companies and 
     farmer premiums.
       (ii) Reform the aviation passenger security user fee to 
     more accurately reflect the costs of aviation security.
       (iii) Offset Disability Insurance (DI) benefits for period 
     of concurrent Unemployment Insurance (UI) receipt.
       (iv) Enact Spectrum License User Fee and allow the FCC to 
     auction predominantly domestic satellite services.
       (v) Limit the total accrual of tax-favored retirement 
     benefits.
       (B) Surface Transportation Reauthorization:
       (i) Invest in surface transportation reauthorization.
       (C) Early Childhood Investments:
       (i) Support Preschool for All.
       (ii) Extend and expand voluntary home visiting.
       (D) Agriculture:
       (i) Reauthorize Secure Rural Schools.
       (ii) Enact Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) fee.
       (iii) Enact bio based labeling fee.
       (iv) Enact Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards 
     Administration (GIPSA) fee.
       (v) Enact Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service 
     (APHIS) fee Education.
       (E) Education:
       (i) Recognize Educational Success, Professional Excellence, 
     and Collaborative Teaching (RESPECT).
       (ii) Reform and expand Perkins loan program.
       (iii) Provide mandatory appropriation to sustain recent 
     Pell Grant increases.
       (iv) Expand and reform student loan income-based repayment.
       (v) Implement College Opportunity and Graduation Bonus 
     Program.
       (vi) Establish State Higher Education Performance Fund.
       (F) Energy:
       (i) Reauthorize special assessment from domestic nuclear 
     utilities.
       (ii) Establish Energy Security Trust Fund Enact nuclear 
     waste management program.
       (iii) Enact nuclear waste management program.
       (G) Health and Human Services:
       (i) Reduce Medicare coverage of bad debts.
       (ii) Better align graduate medical education payments with 
     patient care costs.
       (iii) Reduce Critical Access Hospital (CAH) payments from 
     101 percent of reasonable costs to 100 percent of reasonable 
     costs.
       (iv) Prohibit CAH designation for facilities that are less 
     than miles from the nearest hospital.
       (v) Reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare.
       (vi) Accelerate manufacturer discounts for brand drugs to 
     provide relief to Medicare beneficiaries in the coverage gap.
       (vii) Suspend coverage and payment for questionable Part D 
     prescriptions and incomplete clinical information.
       (viii) Establish quality bonus payments for high-performing 
     Part D plans.
       (ix) Adjust payment updates for certain post-acute care 
     providers.
       (x) Equalize payments for certain conditions commonly 
     treated in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and 
     skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).
       (xi) Encourage appropriate use of inpatient rehabilitation 
     hospitals by requiring that 75 percent of IRF patients 
     require intensive rehabilitation services.
       (xii) Adjust SNF payments to reduce hospital readmissions.
       (xiii) Implement bundled payment for post-acute care.
       (xiv) Exclude certain services from the in office ancillary 
     services exception.
       (xv) Modify the documentation requirement for face-to-face 
     encounters for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, 
     orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS) claims.
       (xvi) Modify reimbursement of Part B drugs.
       (xvii) Modernize payments for clinical laboratory services.
       (xviii) Expand sharing Medicare data with qualified 
     entities.
       (xix) Clarify the Medicare Fraction in the Medicare DHS 
     statue.
       (xx) Implement Value-Based Purchasing for SNFs, Home Health 
     Agencies (HHAs), Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs), and 
     Hospital Outpatient Departments (HOPDs).
       (xxi) Strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board 
     (IPAB) to reduce long-term drivers of Medicare cost growth.
       (xxii) Enact survey and certification revisit fees.
       (xxiii) Invest in CMS Quality Measurement.
       (xxiv) Increase the minimum MA coding intensity adjustment.
       (xxv) Align employer group waiver plan payments with 
     average MA plan bids.
       (xxvi) Allow CMS to reinvest civil monetary penalties 
     recovered from home health agencies.
       (xxvii) Allow CMS to assess a fee on Medicare providers for 
     payments subject to the Federal Payment Levy Program.
       (xxviii) Extend special diabetes program at the National 
     Institutes of Health and Indian Health Services.
       (xxix) Permit HIS/Tribal/Urban Indian Health programs to 
     pay Medicare like rates for outpatient services funded 
     through the Purchased and Referred Care program.
       (xxx) Extend Health Centers.
       (xxxi) Create a competitive, value-based graduate medical 
     education grant program funded through the Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund.
       (xxxii) Extend the Medicaid primary care payment increase 
     through CY2015 with modifications to expand provider 
     eligibility and better target primary care services.
       (xxxiii) Invest in the National Health Services Corps.
       (xxxiv) Program management implementation funding.
       (xxxv) Provide dedicated, mandatory funding for Health Care 
     Fraud and Abuse Control Program (HCFAC) program integrity.
       (xxxvi) Continue funding for the Personal Responsibility 
     Education Program and Health Profession Opportunity Grants.
       (xxxvii) Repurpose Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
     (TANF) Contingency Fund to support Pathways to Jobs 
     initiative.
       (xxxviii) Establish hold harmless for Federal poverty 
     guidelines.
       (xxxix) Expand access to quality child care.
       (xl) Modernize child support.
       (xli) Provide funding for Aging and Disability Resource 
     Centers.
       (xlii) Reauthorize Family Connection Grants.
       (xliii) Support demonstration to address over-prescription 
     of psychothropic medications for children in foster care 
     (funding in Adminstration for Children and Families).
       (H) Homeland Security:
       (i) Permanently extend and reallocate the travel promotion 
     surcharge.
       (I) Housing and Urban Development:
       (i) Provide funding for Project Rebuild.
       (ii) Provide funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
       (J) Interior:
       (i) Establish dedicated funding for Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs.
       (ii) Provide funding for a National Park Service Centennial 
     Initiative.
       (iii) Extend funding for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).
       (iv) Enact Federal oil and gas management reforms.
       (v) Reform hard rock mining on public lands.
       (vi) Repeal geothermal payments to counties.
       (vii) Terminate Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) payments to 
     certified States.
       (viii) Establish an AML hard rock reclamation fund.
       (ix) Increase coal AML fee to pre-2006 levels.
       (x) Reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 
     Act of 2000 (FLTFA).
       (xi) Permanently reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation 
     Enhancement Act (FLREA).
       (xii) Increase duck stamp fees.
       (xiii) Extend the Palau Compact of Free Association.
       (K) Labor:
       (i) Create Back to Work Partnerships for the long term 
     unemployed.
       (ii) Establish a New Career Pathways program for displaced 
     workers.
       (iii) Establish Summer Jobs Plus program for youth.
       (iv) Support Bridge Work and other work-based UI program 
     reforms.
       (v) Enhance UI program integrity.
       (vi) Extend Emergency Unemployment Compensation.
       (vii) Implement cap adjustments for UI program integrity 
     activities.
       (viii) Strengthen UI system solvency.
       (ix) Improve Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) 
     solvency.
       (x) Provide the Secretary of the Treasury authority to 
     access and disclose prisoner data to prevent and identify 
     improper payments.
       (xi) Reform the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA).
       (L) Transportation:
       (i) Establish a mandatory surcharge for air traffic 
     services.
       (ii) Establish a co-insurance program for aviation war risk 
     insurance.
       (M) Treasury:
       (i) Establish a Pay for Success Incentive Fund.
       (ii) Reauthorize and reform the Terrorism Risk Insurance 
     Program.
       (iii) Authorize Treasury to locate and recover assets of 
     the United States and to retain a portion of amounts 
     collected to pay for the costs of recovery.
       (iv) Increase delinquent Federal non-tax debt collections 
     by authorizing administrative bank garnishment for non-tax 
     debts.
       (v) Increase levy authority for payments to Medicare 
     providers with delinquent tax debt.
       (vi) Allow offset of Federal income tax refunds to collect 
     delinquent State income taxes for out-of-State residents.
       (vii) Reduce costs for States collecting delinquent income 
     tax obligations.

[[Page 6030]]

       (viii) Implement tax enforcement program integrity cap 
     adjustment.
       (ix) Provide authority to contact delinquent debtors via 
     their cellphones.
       (x) Reauthorize the State Small Business Credit Initiative.
       (N) Veterans Affairs:
       (i) Establish Veterans Job Corps.
       (ii) Extend round-down of cost of living adjustments 
     (compensation).
       (iii) Extend round-down of cost of living adjustments 
     (education).
       (iv) Provide burial receptacles for certain new casketed 
     gravesites.
       (v) Make permanent the pilot for certain work study 
     activities.
       (vi) Increase cap on vocational rehabilitation contract 
     counseling.
       (vii) Increase annual limitation on new Independent Living 
     cases.
       (viii) Improve housing grant program.
       (ix) Extend supplemental service disabled veterans 
     insurance coverage.
       (O) Corps of Engineers:
       (i) Reform inland waterways funding.
       (P) Environmental Protection Agency:
       (i) Enact pre-manufacture notice fee.
       (ii) Establish Confidential Business Information management 
     fee.
       (Q) International Assistance Programs:
       (i) Mandatory effects of discretionary proposal to 
     implement 2010 International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement 
     (non-scoreable).
       (R) Other Defense--Civil Programs:
       (i) Increase TRICARE pharmacy copayments.
       (ii) Increase annual premiums for TRICARE-For- Life (TFL) 
     enrollment.
       (iii) Increase TRICARE pharmacy copayments.
       (iv) Increase annual premiums for TFL enrollment.
       (S) Office of Personnel Management:
       (i) Streamline FEHBP pharmacy benefit contracting.
       (ii) Provide FEHBP benefits to domestic partners.
       (iii) Expand FEHBP plan types.
       (iv) Adjust FEHBP premiums for wellness.
       (T) Social Security Administration:
       (i) Provide dedicated, mandatory funding for program 
     integrity (benefit savings).
       (ii) Allow SSA to electronically certify certain RRB 
     payments.
       (iii) Eliminate aggressive Social Security claiming 
     strategies.
       (iv) Establish Workers Compensation Information Reporting.
       (v) Extend SSI time limits for qualified refugees.
       (vi) Improve collection of pension information from States 
     and localities.
       (vii) Lower electronic wage reporting threshold to 25 
     employees.
       (viii) Move from annual to quarterly wage reporting.
       (ix) Reauthorize and expand demonstration authority for DI 
     and SSI.
       (x) Terminate step-child benefits in the same month as 
     step-parent.
       (xi) Use the Death Master File to prevent Federal improper 
     payments.
       (U) Other Independent Agencies:
       (i) Dispose of unneeded real property.
       (ii) Create infrastructure bank.
       (iii) Enact Postal Service financial relief and reform.
       (W) Multi-Agency:
       (i) Enact immigration reform.
       (ii) Auction or assign via fee 1675-1680 megahertz.
       (iii) Reconcile OPM/SSA retroactive disability payments.
       (iv) Establish a consolidated TRICARE program (mandatory 
     effects in Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
       (v) Special Immigrant Visa extension.
       (c) In General.--
       (1) This section is required by section 3(e) of H. Res. 5 
     (113th Congress), which requires information related to 
     Means-Tested and Nonmeans-Tested programs and is required to 
     be included in a proposed concurrent resolution on the 
     budget.
       (2) The reforms of programs listed herein are derived from 
     Table S-9 (page 177) included in the Budget Volume of the 
     President's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2015.
       (3) All the reforms of both Means-Tested and Nonmeans-
     Tested programs are hereby incorporated into this section by 
     reference as they are detailed in the President's Budget 
     Submission for Fiscal Year 2015.

                      TITLE III--POLICY STATEMENT

     SEC. 1. POLICY STATEMENT ON PRESIDENTIAL DATA AND POLICIES.

       The budgetary assumptions underlying this concurrent 
     resolution are based on the data and policies contained in 
     the ``Fiscal Year 2015 Budget of the U.S. Government'', 
     prepared by the Office of Management and Budget on behalf of 
     the President and submitted to Congress on March 4 and March 
     10, 2014, pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code. This concurrent resolution adopts and 
     incorporates by reference all data, policy provisions and 
     information contained therein.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 544, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is good to be back this year to once again offer the President's 
budget as an amendment to the Republican budget. That is right; it is 
the President's budget that I will be offering again this year.
  You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that I did this two years ago in an 
effort to try and drive a debate over what I thought was a misguided 
document, a document that the President had offered us that I thought 
offered bad ideas for the future of this country. I came in and offered 
an amendment--as none of my Democratic colleagues saw fit to do so--and 
for various reasons failed to get a single vote on that particular 
amendment.
  My colleagues at that time, Mr. Chairman, took the position that my 
amendment really was not the President's budget. In hindsight, there 
were things that we could have tightened up, and we did. We tightened 
up all the loose ends. There is no question now we specifically 
reference the President's budget in this amendment. This is the 
President's budget.
  Last year, I tried to come and do it again. Last year, I came in with 
a blank piece of paper. Last year I came in with a blank piece of paper 
because the President had not offered his budget in a timely fashion, 
as required by law. Perhaps rightly so, I was ruled out of order, and 
we did not have a chance to have a vote on that particular amendment 
last year.
  The President has solved that problem for us this year. Still a 
little late, but at least we have the President's budget now in time to 
debate it here on the floor during budget week, and I am looking 
forward to doing that. I am looking forward to doing that, Mr. 
Chairman, because this budget does a lot of things that I disagree 
with. It does a lot of things that folks on the other side may agree 
with. But I think it merits a debate. Any time the President of the 
United States takes the time and the energy to produce a budget, I 
think it at least merits 20 minutes of debate on the floor of the House 
of Representatives.
  I look forward to doing that today, and I look forward to having my 
friends defend a budget that does things such as continuing the 
Affordable Care Act, adopting immigration reform, supporting common 
core, creating a new infrastructure bank, creating a $1 billion climate 
fund, increasing airport fees on passengers, making Pell grants a 
mandatory spending program, creating a preschool program for everybody, 
increasing duck stamp fees, extending emergency unemployment 
compensation, increasing costs for TRICARE on our veterans, and 
extending the Federal health benefit programs to same sex partners.
  I think it is a valid discussion that we should have every year. I 
was very glad to learn, by the way, that I am not the first person to 
do this. I was talking to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who 
did this with President Reagan's budget back in the 1980s. I would like 
to see it become a regular feature in this House, and look forward to 
the debate as we go forward today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, some things never change. As the 
gentleman from South Carolina said, he offered this political stunt 2 
years ago, and it is no less of a political stunt today than it was 2 
years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of the President's budget and 
of the President's policies. This is not a vote on the President's 
budget and his policies.
  Do you know what I wish it were? I wish the Speaker of this House 
would bring up the President's proposal to shut down those tax 
incentives that actually encourage multinational corporations to ship 
American jobs overseas and instead use some of those savings to invest 
in jobs here at home. I

[[Page 6031]]

wish the Speaker of this House would let us vote on that President's 
policy. I wish the Speaker of this House would bring up the bipartisan 
immigration bill. One has already passed the Senate. We have a version 
over here in the House. Mr. Chairman, let's vote on that President's 
policy. I wish the Speaker of the House would let us vote on the 
President's minimum wage proposal, to make sure that more people would 
be able to prosper in our economy. We haven't had a vote on that. Mr. 
Chairman, I wish that we could have a vote on the President's proposal 
to extend emergency unemployment compensation. The Senate has passed 
that. Let's have a vote over here.
  This is a political stunt, just like it was before and, by the way, 
the White House sees it as a political stunt again this year, just as 
they were right to call it that the other year.
  This is, in fact, the President's budget right here, right here. This 
is it, Mr. Chairman.
  It is interesting to hear our Republican colleagues who claim to be 
in favor of transparency, accountability, saying that this is the 
President's budget and then allocating 10 minutes per side. I thought 
we didn't even want to take up thousand-plus page bills, we don't even 
want to take those up. Yet, now supposedly we are going to debate and 
vote on something that is over 2,000 pages, less time on the 
President's budget than on any of the other proposals before the House. 
Give me a break.
  If this was serious, it would be a total abuse of process. In fact, 
the Congressional Budget Office hasn't even had a chance, Mr. Chairman, 
to evaluate and score the President's budget yet. So you have got the 
House Republican budget, and you have got the Democratic party, all 
those are written to CBO, but CBO hasn't had a chance to go through 
that this quickly. I am surprised to hear the gentleman thinks the 
House can go through this in 20 minutes. So let's not play games.
  The White House has made clear if you want to support the President's 
priorities and the framework of the President's budget going forward, 
you should support the Democratic alternative, which I will offer 
tomorrow.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from South 
Carolina for bringing this budget forward. In fact, this is President 
Obama's budget.
  I wouldn't be surprised if President Obama referred to his budget as 
a ``political stunt.'' If you look at the history of President Obama's 
budget, which he is legally required to file every year, he is in the 
sixth year of his Presidency. Do you know that 5 of those 6 years 
President Obama failed to meet the legal deadline to file his budget?
  During that 5 out of 6-year period, every single year of those 6 
years, President Obama made time to fill out his Final Four brackets.

                              {time}  1530

  Now, if his Final Four brackets do about as good as his budget does 
for the country--because if you look at the President's budget, which 
we're here debating, and I am speaking against, as my colleague from 
South Carolina is, the President's budget shows his priorities for the 
country, just like we are lying about our priorities for the country to 
get our budget back into balance, to get our economy moving again.
  What does President Obama do? President Obama raises over $1 trillion 
in new taxes, job-crushing taxes, that will pull our economy even 
further back than he has already brought it, but you would think, if 
you listen to liberal orthodoxy that that $1 trillion is going to get 
us to a balanced budget, right?
  They always say they need more money and former taxes to balance the 
budget. Look what happens, Mr. Chair, the President's budget never, 
ever gets to balance, with over $1 trillion in new taxes that he takes 
out of this economy, killing jobs across America, never gets to 
balance.
  Our budgets that we are bringing forward do not raise a dime in new 
taxes and, in fact, gets to balance within the 10-year window, which 
underscores the difference in our visions for the country. We show 
through real policy that actually controlling the spending in 
Washington, forcing Washington to live within its means, is what gets 
our economy moving again and what gets us to balance.
  President Obama proves with his own budget that, with over $1 
trillion in new job-crushing taxes he never, ever gets to balance; but, 
again, 5 out of the President's 6 years in office, only one time has he 
actually met the legal deadline to file his budget.
  He always met the deadline to make his Final Four picks. I think he's 
shown what his priorities are. We are showing ours.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on President Obama's budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, the gentleman referred to the House 
Republican budget a couple times. Just to remind my colleagues that the 
House Republican budget claims to balance in 10 years. It also claims 
to get rid of all the Affordable Care Act, all of ObamaCare, but the 
reality is it has over $2 trillion in revenues and savings from the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Here is what The Heritage Foundation had to say about the budget:

       Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it 
     keeps the tax increases associated with ObamaCare.

  So our Republican colleagues keep saying their budget balances in 10 
years, then they keep saying they are repealing all of Affordable Care 
Act. Both things cannot be true.
  Now, what is true about the House Republican budget is the priorities 
it reflects, and, once again, it protects and rigs special interests 
tax breaks for very powerful groups at the expense of the rest of the 
country.
  Yes, as I indicated earlier, the President has proposed that we get 
rid of some of the tax breaks that actually have a perverse incentive 
for companies to ship jobs overseas, to close those tax breaks, use 
that revenue to invest in our infrastructure and help power our economy 
right here at home.
  From a Republican colleague's perspective, oh, no, you can't cut one 
special interest tax break, not for hedge fund owners, not for Big Oil 
companies. No, no, you can't do that.
  But you know what you can do? You can come after the senior 
prescription drug benefit by reopening the doughnut hole, costing 
seniors another $1,200 a month. You can come after our kid's education. 
You can charge college students higher interest to raise about $40 
billion, higher interest while they are still in school, before they 
get a job.
  You can do all that, but, hey, hands off the big special interests. 
So I am glad that the previous speaker reminded us exactly what this 
Republican budget does
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, like I assume everyone 
who speaks on this amendment is going to do today. It is amazing the 
other party--everyone is opposed to it.
  Here is what it does simply: you cut to the chase, it hollows out 
national defense, it raises trillions in new taxes over the next 10 
years, add about $8 trillion to the national debt--from $17 trillion to 
approximately $25 trillion--it does all that, never, ever, ever getting 
to balance.
  Sometimes, we talk about numbers. Here is why it matters. In the end, 
you think about what makes the country special, moms and dads making 
sacrifices, so their kids can have a life better than they did, that 
they can get to their goals.
  With this kind of vision and this kind of budget, this kind of plan 
for where we are going to go, it will make it that much tougher for 
young people to get the opportunities they need to experience the 
American Dream.
  That is why it is so important. All those policies that the ranking 
member mentioned in his opening statement, they are in this budget. 
This is not a political stunt. This is just putting up

[[Page 6032]]

what the President says is actually going to make the country better. 
We know it is going to make the country worse. We are offering a chance 
for the Democrats to stand up and defend this, and they won't.
  So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. It is same old, same old; cut 
national defense, raise taxes, add to the debt, never ever balance, and 
continue to create this environment that is not conducive to economic 
growth.
  Again, as I said to the minority whip in an earlier debate, in the 
fifth year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, we were growing at 7\1/2\ 
percent. Here, we are in the fifth year of the Obama Presidency, 
meandering along, bumping along at 2 percent growth rate, that is the 
problem.
  This budget will continue that same poor economic performance, and 
that is why we should vote against it.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, we are finished with our speakers and 
reserve the balance and right to close.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has the right to close.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Then I will yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chair, my friend from Maryland made a couple of different points. 
He said that he wishes he could vote for the things in the President's 
budget. I will say to him again here, I'll say it to you, I will say to 
anyone listening the same thing I said to the Rules Committee, the same 
thing I have said the last 3 years: I keep waiting for one of my 
colleagues across the aisle to do exactly that.
  You think I want to be here offering the President's budget? If my 
colleagues across the aisle would like the opportunity to vote on the 
President's budget and the items that are contained in it, they have 
the ability to do so by simply offering this particular amendment.
  Failing that, they will have an opportunity to hear today because, if 
you look at our amendment, it specifically says that the budgetary 
assumptions underlying this current resolution are based on the data 
and the policies in the President's budget.
  It goes on to say that the concurrent resolution adopts and 
incorporates by references all data, policy provisions, and information 
contained therein.
  Everything that is in the President's budget is in this amendment. 
They have plenty of opportunity to vote on this. They can do it 
themselves. They can vote for what I have offered here today.
  Lastly, I will address the point, and my good friend makes a point 
every single year that this is a political stunt. I want to tell a 
story as to why it is not this year. It is a real story. It happened to 
me. It happened to you. It happened to everybody here who represents 
folks back home.
  I get a letter, Mr. Chairman, from the Social Security 
Administration, telling me that they were closing the field offices in 
my district.
  By the way, they closed field offices in everybody's district. In the 
letter, they said they did that because we had cut their budget by $1 
billion for 3 years in a row.
  I am no longer on the Budget Committee, but as Mr. Van Hollen knows, 
I used to serve on that committee, and I don't remember us cutting the 
Social Security Administration by $1 billion each of the last 3 years.
  So I wrote them a letter and said: you said you are closing the field 
offices in my district because we cut your budget. Would you please 
provide me with evidence of that?
  What they wrote back is a letter that said: we got $1 billion less 
from Congress than the President asked for in his budget.
  They got more than they did the year the year before and more than 
they did the year before that. The actual money they had to spend went 
up, but because they didn't get what the President asked for in his 
budget, they closed the offices in our districts that serve our 
constituents.
  This is a very important document. Clearly, the Social Security 
Administration thinks it is an important document. It is at least 
important enough for us to vote on in the House of Representatives.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman just mentioned Social Security Administration funds for 
operations. Let me tell you, if you vote for the House Republican 
budget today, you are going to be decimating the funds available for 
those kind of ongoing operations because they cut that part of the 
budget that allows for the administration of the Social Security 
Administration and cut it big time.
  So it is interesting to hear my colleague talk about the President's 
budget in that regard, but I would suggest he look at the impact from 
the House Republican budget.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chair, I indicated earlier that we would like to 
vote on the President's policies. We have been waiting a very long time 
to vote on comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, we filed a 
discharge petition to do it.
  We would like to vote on increasing the minimum wage. We filed a 
discharge petition to do it. We would like to vote on emergency 
unemployment insurance. We filed a discharge petition on that.
  The Speaker of the House has refused to allow democracy to work. Now, 
we have what is clearly a stunt. As I said, I am a supporter of the 
President's budget; I support the President's policy. I think it is a 
stunt. The White House recognizes it as a stunt. We will have, 
tomorrow, the Democratic alternative that has the support of the White 
House.
  I still find it incredulous that our colleagues are telling us that 
they really are giving 10 minutes per side of debate to what they claim 
is before us, which is 2,000 pages, right?
  These are our colleagues that went around the country calling for 
transparency and accountability. They really want Members to vote on 
something that the Congressional Budget Office has not had a chance to 
score?
  Apparently, they are going to do it next week because they are in the 
process of looking through the President's budget. So even if this were 
on the level, which it is not, you can't compare apples to apples 
without the Congressional Budget Office analysis.
  So I am so glad our Republican colleagues were able to speed-read 
through this thing in 10 minutes and make judgments. The good news for 
them is that is not the President's budget either.
  So let's not play games. Let's recognize that, as we debate these 
budgets, we are debating the country's priorities. We are debating very 
different priorities. Once again, the House Republican budget chooses 
to double down on rigging the rules for very powerful special 
interests.
  If you are a millionaire, you are going to get a one-third cut in 
your tax rate under the House Republican budget. You know who is going 
to pay for it? Middle-income taxpayers will have to pay more to finance 
that tax break for the wealthy--in fact, $2,000 for a family with kids, 
on average.
  You know who else is going to have to pay for that? Our kids' 
education, Early Head Start, Head Start, K-12, college kids.
  You know what else is going to pay? Our competitiveness as a country 
because we are not going to make the investments that, historically, 
have helped power this country forward in the area of transportation 
and infrastructure.
  Republican budget, you know when the trust fund goes insolvent? This 
summer. Nothing in there, nothing in the Republican budget to address 
that issue, just swoosh, down the tubes insolvent.
  Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to actually vote on the 
President's proposal, as I said, to eliminate some of the special 
interests tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas, 
close those down, so we can

[[Page 6033]]

invest in our transportation right here at home.
  So let's not fall for this political stunt. I mean, I have to believe 
that if my colleagues seriously wanted a debate a 2,000-page document, 
that even they would agree that it merits more than 10 minutes, even 
they would agree that we should have the benefit of the Congressional 
Budget Office's analysis before we ask this body to take on that 
responsibility.
  So let's not fall for sham. Let's reject the amendment by Mr. 
Mulvaney; and then, tomorrow, let's vote in support of the Democratic 
alternative.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be 
postponed.


  Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Moore.

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 113-405.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Fudge), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

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

       (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
     this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
     year 2015 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2024.
       (b) Table of Contents.--
       Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
           2015.
       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 2015 through 2024:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,697,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,852,943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,984,977,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,104,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,240,103,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,385,490,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,547,681,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,725,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,915,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,112,238,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $163,459,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $176,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $195,554,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $214,111,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $225,418,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $236,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $253,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $269,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $288,735,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $304,785,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,443,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,400,616,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,473,245,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,601,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,809,035,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,000,203,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,166,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,397,911,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,555,131,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,711,021,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,257,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,448,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,518,207,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,610,258,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,806,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,968,446,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,139,595,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,372,838,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,516,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,657,148,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: -$560,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$595,585,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$533,230,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$505,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$566,793,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$582,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$591,914,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$646,860,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$600,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$544,910,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,429,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,181,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,926,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,661,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,438,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $22,222,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $23,007,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $23,827,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $24,633,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $25,419,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,338,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,973,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,554,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $15,109,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,744,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,421,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $17,137,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $17,944,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $18,732,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $19,505,000,000,000.

     SEC. 3. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $529,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $567,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $569,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $577,616,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $586,874,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $595,151,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $586,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $604,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $613,753,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,662,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $624,066,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $619,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $639,335,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $627,590,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $656,669,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $637,835,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,984,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,034,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,736,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,793,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,826,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,361,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,339,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,465,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,551,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,272,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,693,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,014,000,000.

[[Page 6034]]

       (B) Outlays, $34,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,036,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $36,582,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,560,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,312,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,137,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,902,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,285,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,407,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,656,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,841,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,048,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,270,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,218,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,251,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,598,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,697,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,266,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,969,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,622,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,848,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,846,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,092,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,734,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,264,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,919,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,610,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,617,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,881,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,772,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,023,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,743,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,344,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,887,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,851,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,081,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,553,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,457,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,932,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $12,072,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$832,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,165,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$10,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,715,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$8,647,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,025,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,179,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,142,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$4,528,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$5,476,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,798,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$6,172,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $224,774,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,973,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $140,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $120,192,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $100,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $115,763,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $110,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $102,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $109,213,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $104,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $110,557,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $112,416,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $114,299,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,053,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,337,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $23,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,822,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,720,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,787,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,580,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $14,704,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       (A) New budget authority, $216,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,376,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $125,492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $143,292,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,483,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $115,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $125,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $117,265,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $120,183,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $118,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,104,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $120,472,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $119,992,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,325,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $121,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,279,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,548,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $507,449,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $497,501,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $556,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $561,299,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $614,352,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $613,019,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $634,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $635,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $666,537,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $666,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $710,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $700,055,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $737,724,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $736,844,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:

[[Page 6035]]

       (A) New budget authority, $776,912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $775,495,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $816,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $815,137,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $858,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $857,258,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $523,538,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,428,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $570,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $570,644,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $585,194,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $610,478,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $610,392,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $672,921,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $672,827,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $720,722,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $720,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $771,048,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $770,949,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $854,586,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $854,479,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $883,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $883,135,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $913,236,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $913,119,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $548,028,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $537,560,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $552,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $551,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $555,223,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $551,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $552,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $547,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $572,561,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $569,575,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $581,811,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $599,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,008,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,433,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $617,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $627,486,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $621,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $635,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $624,020,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $158,993,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $155,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $170,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $169,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $168,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $168,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $167,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,463,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $179,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,471,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $183,317,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $188,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $187,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $200,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $199,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $197,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $196,384,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,292,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $193,155,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,342,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,627,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,045,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,242,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $61,594,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,704,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,347,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,367,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,273,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,951,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,423,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,906,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,160,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $69,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,257,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,603,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $77,291,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,605,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,946,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,521,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,309,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,836,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,142,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,612,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,952,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,326,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,227,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,079,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,979,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $367,414,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $367,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $426,582,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $426,582,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $506,101,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $506,101,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $595,624,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $670,430,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $670,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $733,465,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $733,465,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $786,127,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $786,127,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $837,776,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $837,776,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $889,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $889,086,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $934,712,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $934,712,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,600,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,873,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,696,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,440,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,354,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $9,333,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,606,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,704,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,629,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,183,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $8,706,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $8,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $11,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,517,000,000.

[[Page 6036]]

       (B) Outlays, $16,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,340,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,164,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,532,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,374,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$91,882,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$91,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$95,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$95,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$98,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$98,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$107,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$107,098,000,000.
       (21) Overseas Contingency Operations (970):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,250,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $25,625,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $6,504,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $2,225,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $902,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $714,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $35,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $27,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $27,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $0.
       (B) Outlays, $27,000,000.

     SEC. 4. DIRECT SPENDING.

       (a) Means-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For means-tested direct spending, the average rate of 
     growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 6.8 percent.
       (2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated average 
     rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) This concurrent resolution retains the social safety 
     net that has lifted millions of Americans out of poverty and 
     protects both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
     and Medicaid from draconian spending cuts.
       (b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average rate 
     of growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 5.7 percent.
       (2) For nonmeans-test direct spending, the estimated 
     average rate of growth in the total level of outlays during 
     the 10-year period beginning with fiscal year 2015 is 5.4 
     percent under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for nonmeans-tested direct spending:
       (A) For Medicare, this budget rejects proposals to end the 
     Medicare guarantee and shift rising health care costs onto 
     seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or premium 
     support for the purchase of private insurance. Such proposals 
     will expose seniors and persons with disabilities on fixed 
     incomes to unacceptable financial risks, and they will weaken 
     the traditional Medicare program. Instead, this budget builds 
     on the success of the Affordable Care Act, which made 
     significant strides in health-care cost containment and put 
     into place a framework for continuous innovation. This budget 
     supports comprehensive reforms to give physicians and other 
     care providers incentives to provide high-quality, 
     coordinated, efficient care, in a manner consistent with the 
     goals of fiscal sustainability. It makes no changes that 
     reduce benefits available to seniors and individuals with 
     disabilities in Medicare.
       (B) Any savings derived from changes or reforms to Medicare 
     and Social Security should be used to extend the solvency of 
     these vital programs and not be used to offset the cost of 
     cutting taxes.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 544, the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I am so proud to be here with my distinguished 
colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus to present our budget 
for fiscal year 2015.

                              {time}  1545

  We have spent the last week, 2 weeks analyzing the House Republican 
budget, and you have heard here on this floor today the flaws in this 
budget: it doesn't reflect the needs of our Nation; it achieves deficit 
reduction by imposing more austerity provisions at the expense of our 
most vulnerable populations; and it stifles economic growth and our 
ability to compete on a global scale.
  But instead of just criticizing the majority's budget, the 
Congressional Black Caucus once again has done the due diligence to put 
together a budget alternative which we believe meets the highest 
priorities of all Americans.
  First of all, it reduces the deficit responsibly. Secondly, it 
constructs a meaningful job creation package, something Americans 
desperately need. It invests in our infrastructure and education so we 
can grow our economy. It ends the ongoing threat of spending cuts due 
to sequestration. It raises revenue through the Tax Code fairly. We 
just cannot cut our way to prosperity. And, finally, it extends a 
compassionate hand towards those who live in poverty, which is the 
signature and the heart of the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Fudge), the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Ms. FUDGE. I thank you for yielding.
  As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am proud to once again 
propose a fiscally sound and morally responsible alternative budget.
  The CBC has a long history of introducing an alternative budget that 
protects and invests in programs that are vital to our communities. Our 
budget emphasizes the CBC's commitment to eradicating poverty in 
America by increasing economic opportunities through robust investments 
in education and infrastructure, affordable housing, domestic 
manufacturing, small businesses, and job training.
  Though tough decisions are required to ensure our country's fiscal 
future, we do not believe the well-being of the most vulnerable in this 
Nation must be sacrificed for us to remain on the path to economic 
recovery. The CBC alternative budget for fiscal year 2015 remains true 
to the principle of opportunity for all.
  The Ryan budget, on the other hand, completely misses the mark. It 
disregards the fact that millions of Americans struggle to feed their 
families and find jobs. It requires sacrifices of the most vulnerable, 
including the youngest and eldest among us.
  As reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some 69 
percent of the cuts in Chairman Ryan's budget come from programs that 
serve people of limited means. These disproportionate cuts, which 
account for $3.3 trillion of the budget's $4.8 trillion in nondefense 
cuts over the next decade, contrast sharply with the Ryan budget's 
rhetoric about helping the poor and promoting opportunity. Need I say 
more about that?
  To my colleagues in the House, the CBC substitute budget is the best 
blueprint. Let's build a stronger, better, and more fiscally 
responsible America together. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote 
for the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget substitute offered by the Congressional 
Black Caucus is a good faith effort to lift a growing portion of our 
population out of chronic poverty and despair, a goal all of us share. 
It attempts to do so over the next 10 years by raising $2.3 trillion of 
taxes on corporations and the wealthy and running up an additional $4.3 
trillion of debt to increase

[[Page 6037]]

overall Federal spending by $6.7 trillion to fund so-called stimulus 
spending relative to the Republican budget. My fear is that it will 
accomplish exactly the opposite of what it intends, harming the very 
people it is trying to help.
  Let's start with some fundamentals on tax policy.
  First, we need to understand that businesses do not pay business 
taxes. There are only three possible ways for business taxes to be 
paid: they are paid by consumers as higher prices; they are paid by 
employees as lower wages; and they are paid by investors as lower 
earnings--your 401(k) or pension plan, for example.
  Secondly, we need to understand what a trillion dollars is. Divided 
by the number of U.S. households, it comes to about $8,200 for every 
family in America.
  As much as we like talking about taxing the wealthy, there aren't 
enough wealthy people in this country to make more than a dent in these 
numbers. Indeed, many of the so-called wealthy are actually small 
businesses filing under subchapter S.
  Raising taxes by $2.3 trillion ultimately, then, means that families, 
on average, will have $18,000 less to spend on their own needs that 
they will pay through higher prices in stores, through lower wages at 
work, or as lower retirement savings.
  In addition, the CBC budget would plunge our Nation $4.3 trillion 
further into debt after 10 years relative to the House Republican 
budget. That is more than $35,000 per household. That is not a 
theoretical number. That amount, plus interest, will have to be paid 
back in future taxes just as surely as if it appeared on your credit 
card statement. In fact, families will be required to pay this debt 
back before they pay their credit card, and the IRS is quite insistent 
that they do.
  Again, not all of that will be direct taxes. Much of it will be 
hidden in higher prices, lower wages, and lower retirement savings for 
families. But make no mistake; it must all be paid back, and families 
will bear that burden.
  Let's look at the massive increase in spending designed to jump-start 
the economy. That policy has already failed us, and failed us 
miserably, and here is why:
  Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy until it 
has first taken that dollar out of the economy. If I take a dollar from 
Peter and give it to Paul, it is true Paul is going to have an extra 
dollar to spend. He is going to take it into a store. The storekeeper 
is going to order more inventory, the manufacturer is going to order 
more resources, and that dollar will ripple through the economy.
  But we have completely forgotten the other half of that equation. 
Peter now has one less dollar to spend in that economy--one less dollar 
to ripple through it. So, in the end, we have not stimulated the 
economy at all. That is why the trillions of dollars we have already 
spent trying to stimulate the economy have not worked.
  Indeed, this does great damage to the economy because we are 
transferring huge amounts of capital from the productive sector, which 
invests its money based on the highest economic return of a dollar, to 
the public sector, which invests based on the highest political return 
of the dollar. Those are two very different things. Indeed, that is the 
difference between FedEx and the post office; it is the difference 
between Apple Computer and Solyndra; it is the difference between the 
Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery.
  So I beg my colleagues to reconsider. We have tried these policies 
and they do not work. Under this administration, we have seen record 
tax increases, record spending increases, and record debt. The result 
is tragic.
  The poverty rate for Americans of African heritage has grown from 12 
percent in 2008 to 16.1 percent today. Median income for White 
households has declined by 3.6 percent during this administration, but 
it has dropped by 10.9 percent for African American households. Compare 
that to the Reagan years, when median income increased for all 
Americans by 4.4 percent but grew by 4.5 percent for African American 
households.
  No one doubts the sincerity of the Congressional Black Caucus in 
bringing this budget substitute to the floor, but there is an old 
saying: You can't fix a broken bucket by pouring more water in it; at 
some point, you have to fix the bucket.
  The House Republican budget does this by reducing the tax and 
regulatory burdens that are choking investment in job creation and that 
are causing the long, cold winter that our country has endured. If we 
want to see morning again in America, we need to restore the policies 
that have produced it before.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant minority leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget 
and in support of the alternative put forth by the Congressional Black 
Caucus.
  Put simply, the Republican budget is bad for seniors, bad for young 
people, and bad for America's economic future. It may be a path to 
prosperity for the investor class in our society, but it is a path to 
permanent struggle for America's working families.
  The Republican budget is a disaster for our senior citizens. It 
brings back the doughnut hole for Medicare prescription drugs. We 
eliminated the doughnut hole with the Affordable Care Act, but this 
Republican budget brings it back.
  The Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee of earned benefits 
and replaces it with a risky voucher scheme. American workers deserve 
the guarantee of earned benefits. This Republican budget slashes $732 
billion from Medicaid. Mr. Chairman, two-thirds of Medicaid's funds 
serve seniors and disabled Americans.
  The Republican budget is a disaster for our children and young 
people. It guts Head Start and cuts school lunches and Pell grants.
  This budget repeals the Affordable Care Act provision that allows 
young people to stay on their parents' health plans until their 26th 
birthday. It allows discrimination against people with preexisting 
conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and asthma.
  This Republican budget rigs the system so that only the children of 
the well-off and well-connected can get ahead, while the children of 
the less well-off are consigned to a life of permanent struggle.
  This budget rejects the one measure that could immediately unleash 
more economic activity and grow our economy: comprehensive immigration 
reform.
  In contrast, the CBC budget continues our long history of fiscal 
soundness and moral responsibility. We make tough choices to secure our 
financial future, but we do not believe that the most vulnerable in our 
Nation should be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
  The CBC budget focuses on eradicating poverty in America through 
robust investments in education, infrastructure, affordable housing, 
manufacturing, and small business development. Our budget targets funds 
to needy communities.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MOORE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. CLYBURN. It contains our 10-20-30 initiative, requiring that at 
least 10 percent of Federal funds in certain accounts are directed to 
areas that have had a poverty rate of 20 percent or more for the last 
30 years.
  Mr. Chairman, our budgets should reflect our Nation's values and 
establish what kind of future we want for our citizens. It is 
fundamentally unfair that 69 percent of the cuts in the Republican 
budget come from services to low-income and hardworking Americans.
  We can do better. We must do better. The CBC budget is better. We 
should support it and reject the Republican budget.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to

[[Page 6038]]

the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the former Governor.
  Mr. SANFORD. I thank my colleague.
  I rise in respectful opposition to the CBC budget for the reasons 
that my colleague from California just enumerated.
  I have listened to this debate over the last few minutes, and the 
Ryan budget has been called a draconian budget, a phony budget, an 
extreme budget, a reckless budget, a heat-seeking missile aimed at the 
American public budget, but what it has not been recognized as is a 
brave budget. And I say that because it gets at what no other budget in 
this process gets at, which is entitlement spending. The President's 
budget doesn't. The CBC budget doesn't. The Democratic alternative 
doesn't. The Progressive budget doesn't. It's only this budget that 
really begins to address the elephant in the room.
  Is it perfect? No.
  Will I vote against some of the appropriations bills that come along 
in its wake? I suspect, yes.

                              {time}  1600

  But it has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with 
that first step. And to the credit of the Ryan--the Republican budget, 
it begins that first step at addressing entitlement reform in a way 
that has not been the case because, to do nothing would, indeed, be to 
launch a heat-seeking missile into the pocketbook, the wallet, the 
purse of every American as we wait for the day of reckoning to occur, 
which is 2025.
  In 2025, there will only be enough money for interest and 
entitlements and nothing else. So we can talk about all these other 
worthy programs, but without addressing that terminal date of 2025, we 
are in real trouble.
  I think that there are particular problems with this amendment. As 
you look at taxes going up by $2.3 trillion, you look at spending going 
up by $6.7 trillion, and you look at an additional $4.3 trillion of 
debt, it says we have real problems.
  But, again, the operative number is what happens to the value of our 
currency, to future inflation, and to the value of our savings if we do 
nothing, which is, again, addressed in this Ryan budget with its 
address of entitlement spending. To do nothing is indeed extreme, and 
it is reckless.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy now to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the leader of the 
Congressional Black Caucus' Budget Task Force.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, which is 
a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying 
Republican budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican Committee budget starts off by cutting 
taxes by $4 trillion and claims this can be revenue neutral.
  Simple arithmetic, therefore, requires a $4 trillion tax increase, 
and the budget doesn't mention a word about where that money is going 
to come from, not a loophole closing or any other tax increase. And 
therefore, the budget starts off with a $4 trillion hole in it.
  Their budget then expects people to believe that they will make $4 
trillion in cuts by repealing the Affordable Care Act provisions for 
tax credits and Medicaid changes that have resulted in millions of 
people getting insurance for the first time. They are going to lose 
that coverage.
  Do they think that is going to happen?
  Do they think they are going to be able to increase the age for 
Medicare recipients and reopen the doughnut hole?
  Do they think they are going to be able to make the cuts in the 
budget to Medicaid, denying access to health care to millions of low-
income Americans, requiring millions to lose their nursing home 
coverage?
  We know that that is not credible. Neither is it credible that over 
$100 billion in cuts to supplemental food assistance--we know that is 
not credible. They tried to cut $40 billion last year, then $20 
billion, couldn't do that. They ended up with 8. Now they are going to 
say, well, all of a sudden we can do 100.
  The budget fails to say where the other cuts are going to come from, 
whether it is going to come from education or job training or research 
or transportation, or other.
  You have unspecified cuts. And to the extent that they are 
unspecified, that $4 trillion isn't going to happen. So they have a $4 
trillion hole in revenues. They have a $4 trillion hole in spending 
cuts, $8 trillion hole in their budget.
  You can talk about it being balanced, but until you come up with the 
specifics of where that $8 trillion is going to come from, it is just 
not a serious budget.
  In stark contrast, the Congressional Black Caucus budget puts numbers 
on the page. We show our math. We show not only that we can raise $2 
trillion in revenues, we show where it can come from by laying out over 
$4 trillion in options, specifics, not $4 trillion unspecified, but $4 
trillion specified, $2 trillion needed to make the budget.
  We eliminate sequestration. We have proposed a $500 billion jobs 
package that will end the recession by putting millions back to work, 
and approximately $400 billion for an antipoverty initiative that will 
restore cuts to the social safety net and enable people to get job 
training and education to make them able to work their way out of 
poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simple, straightforward arithmetic.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 20 
seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Our budget calls for policy changes and 
comprehensive immigration reform, a public option for health care, and 
others, and it will be scored at $1.8 trillion, real live reduction in 
the deficit, compared to the CBO baseline.
  Our budget is a credible, job-creating alternative to the 
unrealistic, draconian plan offered by our Republican colleagues, which 
has an $8 trillion hole in it.
  I ask you to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, it has been the honor of a lifetime to 
serve on the Budget Committee under the leadership of our distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), to whom I yield such 
time as he may consume.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman. And I also want to 
thank the CBC for offering a budget. I think that is what is important 
that is happening here, people are coming to the floor of Congress 
offering their ideas, offering their solutions.
  One of the things that they are so clearly concerned about, that they 
have their method of dealing with in the budget is, what do you do 
about poverty. This is something that we are also deeply concerned 
about.
  A year ago we decided to look at our strategies from the Federal 
Government's perspective on fighting poverty because, after all, we are 
in the 50th year, the 50th anniversary of the so-called War on Poverty.
  We wanted to say, is there a good accounting of all those Federal 
poverty programs that we can look at to see if they are working well, 
if they need updating, because, after all, they were put in place 
largely in the mid- to late part of the 20th century.
  No such accounting occurred. So we spent the last year looking 
through all these programs, looking at all the audits and the 
Government Accountability Office reports and the inspector general 
reports and outside academics' opinions of these things. We took it all 
together, and we realized that the Federal Government has nearly 100 
programs aimed at fighting poverty, spending about $800 billion a year 
doing so.
  And look at the results. We have the highest poverty rate in a 
generation. Deep poverty is the highest, on record. Forty-six million 
people are living in poverty.
  So we are asking ourselves, does one more program from the Department 
of

[[Page 6039]]

Health and Human Services, is that going to do the trick all of a 
sudden?
  It is not working. So our concern is that we have moved from a war on 
eradicating poverty to simply treating the symptoms of poverty to make 
it more tolerable, to manage poverty.
  We are measuring our success--and this is how this debate always 
goes--based upon how much money we throw at programs, based on inputs, 
not based on outcomes.
  How many people are we truly getting out of poverty?
  As we look at these programs, the best thing we should do is go and 
listen to people who are fighting poverty; go listen to people who have 
successfully fought poverty.
  I got up real early Monday morning in Martindale-Brightwood--it is a 
low-income neighborhood in Indianapolis, Indiana--to learn from people 
who are successfully fighting poverty, who are really doing amazing 
things, seeing potential and great lives realizing their potential.
  We can learn a lot by getting out of this town, by finding out what 
works, and getting behind them and helping make sure what works 
continues.
  But if we suffocate this debate with more one-size-fits-all, with 
more Washington knows best, with one more program, you know, the 93rd 
one is going to be the charm, then we are not going to get at the root 
cause of the problem.
  The goal here is to get at the root cause of poverty to break the 
cycle of poverty, so I think there is a lot we all need to learn about 
this.
  Hopefully, what we are accomplishing here, in our budget, is letting 
people who are closer to the problem have a little more flexibility, a 
little more discretion, so that they can customize and tailor solutions 
to meet the unique and particular needs of the people in their 
communities who are actually striving and fighting poverty.
  One more point. When we stack all these programs on top of each 
other, we have done something inadvertently in this government, and 
that is, we have built barriers toward self-sufficiency. We have made 
it harder for a rational person to leave benefits and go into work 
because they lose more when they do that.
  We have got tax rates, single moms making less than $40,000 a year 
with kids that are, like, 80 percent, meaning, you go to work, you lose 
more in benefits than you gain going to work. We have got to do 
something about that. That should not be a Republican, Democrat thing. 
That is just plain old economics.
  So I think we need to rethink our approach, and not measure based on 
inputs, not measure based on how much money we can throw at programs, 
but measure based on what is working, who is doing a good job, how can 
we support them, how can we learn and listen from them.
  Oh, and why don't we start measuring success based on outcomes?
  That is what we are trying to achieve.
  We have got a long ways to go, but I hope that that is the kind of 
conversation we can get to.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 4\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I am so happy at this time to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the chair of the 
Democratic whip's Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, and also a 
distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. LEE of California. First, let me thank Congresswoman Moore for 
your very bold leadership on the Budget Committee, and also for leading 
us today in this debate.
  And too, of course, Congressman Bobby Scott, the chair of our 
Congressional Black Caucus. Just want to thank you all for bringing 
forth really what is a very pro-American budget.
  I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget. I 
just have to say, Chairman Ryan and I, we constantly talk about how to 
lift people out of poverty. I have to say that his poverty report, and 
I just have to respond to what he said because we know that the War on 
Poverty and the programs and the safety net, they have worked. They 
have saved millions and millions of people from falling into the ranks 
of the poor, and have lifted people out of poverty.
  If we raised the minimum wage right now, these single moms that you 
talk about, who rely on food stamps and Medicaid because they can't get 
a decent living wage, yeah, they would be very happy. And I think the 
country would be a lot better, if, in fact, we raised the minimum wage, 
which, of course, the Congressional Black Caucus budget promotes and 
allows for and invests in in terms of job creation and in terms of 
ensuring that the safety net is preserved.
  Instead of ending subsidies for Big Oil, tax breaks for corporate 
jets, tax breaks for companies that site offshore, the Republican 
budget cuts at least $125 million from SNAP.
  In stark contrast, the CBC budget provides $388 billion to eradicate 
poverty in America, restoring cuts to SNAP, extending unemployment 
insurance, and targeting resources to those most in need.
  Our budget also addresses health disparities and protects and 
strengthens Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, restoring the cuts 
the Ryan budget would make.
  This budget provides $230 billion to revitalize our Nation's 
infrastructure and creates a $500 billion jobs program to our 
initiatives in our budget to accelerate the Nation's economic recovery, 
including $7 billion in a summer jobs program.
  A budget is a moral document. It reflects who we are as a country. 
The CBC's budget reflects the best of American values.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this balanced, pro-growth, pro-jobs budget.
  Finally, it ends the overseas contingency account. This perpetual 
spending on war needs to end. Nation-building at home must begin.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are ready to close when the 
gentlelady has finished her presentation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I am so pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), a freshman on the Budget 
Committee.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlelady, my good friend, 
from the Badger State for her leadership.
  Mr. Chair, 50 years ago, President Lyndon Baines Johnson came to this 
very Chamber and declared a war on poverty, and as a result of the 
legislative efforts that were brought about in connection with the 
Great Society vision, tens of millions of Americans were lifted out of 
an impoverished condition and set on the trajectory toward the middle 
class.
  The CBC is here today because we recognize that there is still a lot 
of work that needs to be done, particularly in the aftermath of the 
collapse of the economy, the Great Recession, the worst economic 
condition since the Great Depression.
  That is why the CBC budget invests in the American economy, invests 
in job training and education, invests in transportation and 
infrastructure, invests in research and development, invests in 
affordable housing, invests in creating manufacturing jobs.
  The CBC budget would renew unemployment compensation in order to make 
sure that the long-term unemployed, who are collateral damage of the 
Great Recession, can get back into the mainstream of our economy.
  The CBC budget will give Americans a raise to $10.10 an hour by 
lifting the minimum wage. By the way, that will help grow the economy 
because we have a consumer demand problem, and as a result of the 
increase in spending resulting from the minimum wage increase, 
everybody in America will benefit.
  The CBC does this in a fiscally responsible way that will reduce the 
deficit, but it does it in a manner that does not balance the budget on 
the backs of working families, middle class folks, senior citizens, the 
poor, the sick, and the afflicted; and that is not even an exhaustive 
list of what the Ryan budget does.

[[Page 6040]]

  So I am urging all of our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the CBC 
alternative, invest in America, invest in our economy, and invest in 
our workers.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I thank all of my colleagues in the 
Congressional Black Caucus who have worked hard on this budget.
  I was so happy that the chair of the Budget Committee came to the 
floor. We, obviously, don't have time to continue this conversation on 
poverty, and I think that there is much to talk about since we 
shouldn't blame poverty programs or blame the poor; but we need to look 
at inequality, the state of our economy, and an unfair Tax Code.
  Indeed, 2007 and 1928, 2 years that ushered in the Great Depression 
and the Great Recession, chronicled the highest inequality in our 
country, and that might, in fact, talk about where our budget 
priorities ought to be. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is human nature, I think, to resist concluding that 
our beliefs have been disproven by experience. The more we invest in 
our mistakes, the less willing we often are to recognize and correct 
them; but sooner than later, we have to acknowledge from our own 
experience that certain policies work and certain policies don't, 
whether they are tried by Republicans or Democrats.
  My Democratic colleagues are right to praise the Clinton 
administration's handling of the economy; but we must ask: What were 
those policies?
  In 1995, he announced that the era of Big Government is over. Working 
in cooperation with the Republican Congress, they reduced Federal 
spending by a miraculous 4 percent of GDP. They enacted what amounted 
to the biggest capital gains tax cut in American history.
  They reformed entitlement spending by abolishing the open-ended 
welfare system. They produced four budget surpluses in a row, and the 
economy flourished, and it expanded for all Americans.
  My colleagues are also right to heap scorn on George W. Bush's 
handling of the economy; but we have to ask again: What were those 
policies?
  Well, he increased Federal spending by 2 percent of GDP. He enacted 
the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society. 
He began the era of stimulus spending. He ran up what, at the time, 
were record budget deficits. Don't my colleagues see that they are 
advocating the same policies that got us into this mess?
  My objection to President Obama is not that he has changed Bush's 
policies, but, rather, that he has not changed them. He has taken the 
worst of them and doubled down on them. The CBC substitute takes us 
further down this path of debt and doubt and despair.
  In 1862, Abraham Lincoln sent this message to the Congress--and I 
think that they are words meant for us today. He said:

       The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy 
     present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we 
     must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must 
     think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and 
     then we shall save our country.

  I invite my friends to think anew and act anew; to disenthrall 
ourselves from the policies that have failed; and to return to the 
policies of individual liberty, constitutionally limited government, 
and personal responsibility that produced the most prosperous, happy, 
and free society in the history of civilization. In short, freedom 
works, and it is time that we put it and our country back to work.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Congressional 
Black Caucus's budget alternative to the extreme Republican-led Ryan 
budget. Congressional Republicans have offered up a budget that 
continues their legislative reign of terror completely undermining our 
Nation's future by protecting the wealthiest.
  The CBC has put forth a ``real'' budget that finds responsible ways 
to reduce our Nation's deficit and recommits the Federal Government to 
eradicating poverty. In Los Angeles County, where my district is 
located, we have the highest poverty rate among all of the Californian 
counties. The CBC budget works to help districts like mine by making a 
$500 billion investment over 3 years into jobs to accelerate our 
Nation's economic recovery and put Americans back to work.
  Many Californians find it difficult to make ends meet without the 
support of Federal safety net programs. Our budget strengthens and 
protects the social safety net by restoring cuts to the SNAP program, 
extending emergency unemployment insurance and increasing economic 
opportunities through targeted investments in education, 
infrastructure, affordable housing, domestic manufacturing, small 
businesses, and scientific research.
  Mr. Chair, it is clear that the Republican Leadership is not serious 
about putting our Nation back on the track to prosperity. It is time 
for a change. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to do the right thing and make a true investment into our 
Nation's future by voting for the Congressional Black Caucus's budget 
alternative.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chair, on January 8, 1964, President 
Johnson came before the nation to deliver his State of the Union 
address and declared a war on poverty. It has been 60 years since 
President Johnson gave us that charge, but we have yet to achieve a 
country free from the burdens of poverty. As President Johnson said all 
those years ago, ``It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single 
weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war 
is won. The richest nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot 
afford to lose it.''
  Well, Mr. Chair, President Johnson was correct. The struggle has been 
neither short nor easy, but he was also right when he said we would not 
rest until the war on poverty was won. There is no silver bullet, no 
single weapon or strategy for confronting something as complex as our 
nation's struggle with poverty. That is why I rise today in support of 
the budget put forth by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). This 
budget is neither a single weapon nor a single strategy, but rather a 
multi-faceted dynamic approach to responsible governing that will 
strengthen our economy and reduce our deficit by approximately $1.8 
trillion over the next ten years.
  Mr. Chair, a budget can act as a mirror; a mirror that reflects the 
priorities, ideals and morality of a nation. When we hold the budget 
proposed by Chairman Ryan up to the mirror, we see an image that 
distorts the ideals that provide the foundation for this country. We 
see an image that prioritizes protecting the wealthy over championing 
middle class families, small businesses and the poor. We know what we 
need to do to help those Americans who are struggling. We need to 
extend emergency unemployment insurance; we need to raise the minimum 
wage; we need to support the Affordable Care Act; invest in education; 
invest in job training; and we certainly have to invest in our 
infrastructure. We need a plan to create jobs. Mr. Chair, the dynamic 
budget proposed by the CBC addresses all of these issues and more. 
Under Mr. Ryan's Path to Poverty, these critical issues are not 
addressed. In fact, they are purposely ignored.
  Mr. Chair, our tax code is hurting many Americans. It is a code that 
rewards and protects the rich at the expense of middle class families 
and the poor. Taken together, the ideas proposed by the CBC would equal 
roughly $4.3 trillion in revenue enhancement over the next decade in 
ways that are fairer to more Americans. The CBC only directs the 
appropriate committees in the House and Senate to find $2.0 trillion in 
revenue enhancements.
  Those of us who champion the CBC budget provide a number of ways to 
reach that $2.0 trillion mark. For instance, we could end special tax 
breaks and close tax loopholes available only to the wealthiest 
Americans. This alone could get us $1 trillion over the next ten years. 
We could also stop the wealthiest among us from using overseas tax 
havens to avoid paying their fair share. Along these same lines, let us 
rid our tax code of ridiculous loopholes like deductions for yachts and 
the loophole for corporate jets. Additionally, we could find $880 
billion over the next decade if we taxed capital gains and dividends as 
ordinary income. We all have constituents back home who work hard all 
week. They put in their 40 hours, often times more, to provide for 
their families. At the end of the week they get a check from which 
taxes have been withheld at rates for ordinary income. This amount is 
taxed higher than the gains made in from stocks. The Congressional 
Research Service (CRS) has said that these rates are ``the single 
greatest driver of income inequality over a recent 15 year period was 
runaway income from capital gains and dividends.'' It does not

[[Page 6041]]

seem to me, Mr. Chair, unreasonable to ask that the Wall Street banker 
sitting on a stock portfolio, to pay the same tax rates as a teacher in 
Florida or a factory worker in Maine.
  Mr. Chair, we have a truly disturbing income inequality situation in 
this country. Such inequality is unfair to those who work diligently to 
create growth for this country, but who do not get to reap the benefits 
there from. This inequality is bad for the social fabric that binds 
this country together. While corporations and top level executives make 
record profits and payout larger and larger bonuses, middle class 
Americans are left further and further behind as they struggle through 
this jobless recovery.
  Additionally, sequestration did not do any favors for the middle 
class or poor. Sequestration was the brutal swing of a cudgel of 
despair aimed right at the hopes and dreams of poor and middle class 
families. Head Start programs were scaled back, summer sessions were 
cut, instructors were cut, and students were put on waitlists rather 
than in classrooms. Seniors were placed in danger of facing food 
insecurities when Meals on Wheels had to cut down on their deliveries. 
Sequestration led to federal funding being cut for education including 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). This was done 
at the K-12 level and the college level. It will be absolutely 
impossible for this country to maintain its advantage in an 
increasingly advanced and complex world economy if we do not invest in 
STEM education at all levels. These are but a few reasons the CBC 
Budget responsibly puts an end to Sequestration.
  Mr. Chair, our country cries out for a jobs bill that will accelerate 
economic recovery and helps Americans across this nation. The CBC 
budget answers these cries by proposing a jobs program totaling $500 
billion. This responsible approach to governing will grow our economy 
by establishing a National Direct Job Creation Program that puts people 
to work repairing our schools, community centers, parks and 
playgrounds. This program will add 2.8 million jobs. This responsible 
approach to growing our economy also includes a plan to modernize our 
schools. Many of the schools around this country were built decades 
ago. These schools are approaching the point where we cannot adequately 
train our young people for the challenges ahead. In order to meet the 
demands and challenges of the future, our students need facilities that 
can handle the cutting edge technologies that will undoubtedly form the 
basis of any decent job of the future.
  Mr. Chair, the CBC's responsible approach to governing calls for an 
immediate investment in our country's infrastructure. Not only will an 
immediate investment in our infrastructure lead to hundreds of 
thousands of jobs dedicated to upgrading this country's crumbling 
roads, bridges and railways, but by strengthening our infrastructure, 
we help businesses small and large alike grow by giving them access to 
the tools they need to ship goods throughout the country.
  The CBC's responsible approach to governing also acknowledges the 
fact that the housing crisis continues to ripple throughout many of our 
neighborhoods. That is why the budget calls for significant funding to 
help communities rebuild and helps families facing foreclosures remain 
in their homes. Furthermore, the CBC budget, acknowledges the fact that 
a person may come into this economy with one set of skills, but through 
no fault of their own, find that they need a new set of skills to be 
competitive in a rapidly changing economy. The budget makes sure that 
these hard working Americans are not left behind by giving them access 
to technical training, career services, graduate and certificate 
programs and other job training programs.
  Mr. Chair, every day, homeless Americans face constant instability 
and must cope with difficult and often unhealthy lifestyles. For those 
living without permanent housing, everyday life is extremely difficult. 
Storing and preparing food is nearly impossible, and much of the 
homeless population relies on temporary shelters and soup kitchens to 
survive. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides 
working poor Americans with badly needed nourishment. Cutting funding 
for this program will only add to the difficulties so many are facing. 
The CBC budget recognizes this reality, and uses the program savings 
that will come from raising the minimum wage to help improve and 
streamline the benefits and ensure that this critical lifeline remain 
available for those who need it most.
  The budget proposed here today is a budget that protects the poor, 
while providing security for middle class families. It is a budget that 
protects the social fabric holding together the greatest experiment in 
democracy the world has ever known. It is a budget that responsibly 
rewards innovation, while closing gross inequalities in wealth. It is a 
budget that helps teachers instill in our young people a thirst for 
knowledge. It is a budget that invests in this country's roads and 
bridges to help our small businesses. It is a budget that will bring us 
further down the road towards ending the War on Poverty, not further 
down the Road to Ruin that the Republicans want to take us.

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin will be 
postponed.


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

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 113-405.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to offer amendment No. 3, the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus' Better Off Budget substitute.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

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

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015 
     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal year 2014 and for fiscal years 2016 through 
     2024.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                 TITLE II--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 2014 through 2024:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,267,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $2,831,675,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,212,240,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,374,939,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,506,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,641,750,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,802,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,981,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,177,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,381,636,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,601,863,000,000
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2014: -$18,146,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $297,834,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $536,201,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $585,516,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $616,487,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $627,065,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $653,712,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $687,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $721,598,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $755,118,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $794,410,000,000.
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,247,639,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,519,727,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,641,609,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,702,936,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,807,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,993,030,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,179,140,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,345,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,582,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,737,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,885,880,000,000.
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,208,699,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,501,527,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,620,608,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,679,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,783,105,000,000.

[[Page 6042]]

       Fiscal year 2019: $3,959,198,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $4,128,470,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,307,080,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,545,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,687,974,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,823,437,000,000.
       (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget) 
     are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2014: -$941,519,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: -$669,852,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: -$408,368,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: -$305,003,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: -$276,311,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: -$317,448,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: -$326,121,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: -$325,423,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: -$367,937,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: -$306,338,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: -$221,574,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate 
     levels of the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2014: $18,065,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,906,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,464,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,967,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,459,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $20,980,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $21,501,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $22,019,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $22,553,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $23,061,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $23,520,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2014: $13,106,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,815,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $14,256,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,594,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,908,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,287,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $15,701,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $16,148,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $16,671,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $17,159,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $17,607,000,000,000.

     SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2014 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National Defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $613,587,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $611,778,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $529,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $567,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $531,585,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $547,345,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $544,671,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $541,996,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $557,935,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $545,358,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $571,220,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $560,986,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,516,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,804,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $599,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $587,870,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $615,493,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $607,783,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $631,503,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $647,988,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $628,997,000,000.
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,107,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,493,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $54,815,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,110,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,236,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,027,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $61,946,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,410,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,985,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,857,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $64,511,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $70,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,177,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $72,711,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,968,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,940,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,702,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $38,056,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,888,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,336,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,035,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $39,606,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $41,514,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,767,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,624,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,674,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,749,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,726,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,914,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,844,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,037,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,548,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,159,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,624,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,660,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,500,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,988,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,807,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,438,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,484,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,911,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,097,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,831,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,886,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,091,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,773,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,106,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,209,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,088,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,317,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,928,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,577,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,147,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,695,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,108,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,635,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $52,553,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $52,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,222,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,858,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $55,217,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,664,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,347,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,350,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,773,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,017,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,270,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,950,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,718,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,113,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,415,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,583,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,529,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,981,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,899,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,364,000,000.

[[Page 6043]]

       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,166,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,544,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,025,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,932,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,418,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority,- $78,271,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,572,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,323,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,977,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,247,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,793,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,883,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$2,792,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$1,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,525,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,984,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,089,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,519,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,432,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,352,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,069,000,000.
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,686,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $201,774,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $208,281,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $172,720,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,129,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $173,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $179,443,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $169,945,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $166,142,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $151,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $157,221,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $154,327,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $160,238,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $156,968,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,623,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $159,648,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $167,073,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,424,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $170,501,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,813,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,424,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,910,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,026,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,876,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,005,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,952,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,079,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,062,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,496,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,287,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,955,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,319,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,692,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,781,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,495,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,623,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $261,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $258,064,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $230,723,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $230,478,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $160,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $159,280,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $135,667,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,191,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $131,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $131,549,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $127,945,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $127,648,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $129,527,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $129,101,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $130,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $130,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $133,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $132,653,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $136,966,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $135,505,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $140,110,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $138,546,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $424,420,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $419,542,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $513,727,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $504,096,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $579,270,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,234,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $632,324,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $653,338,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $654,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $688,193,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $688,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $734,634,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $724,190,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $765,783,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $764,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $807,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $806,128,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $850,655,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $848,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $897,725,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $896,110,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $525,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $525,132,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $537,777,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $537,667,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $578,698,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $578,619,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $584,606,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $584,530,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $607,547,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $607,461,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $668,007,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $713,427,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $713,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $761,672,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $761,573,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $844,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $844,593,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $870,769,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $870,659,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $894,893,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $894,776,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $609,097,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $601,095,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $679,289,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $667,543,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $698,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $691,417,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $650,569,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $645,904,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $636,789,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $630,050,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $643,578,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $639,657,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $660,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $656,666,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $679,518,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $674,485,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $704,717,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $703,166,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $721,635,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $714,933,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $737,608,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $725,532,000,000.
       (14) Social Security (650):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,711,000,000.

[[Page 6044]]

       (B) Outlays, $28,821,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,442,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,517,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,245,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,283,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,133,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $37,133,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,138,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,383,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,747,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,255,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,941,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $53,941,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,800,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,441,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
       (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $155,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $150,436,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $167,617,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $163,117,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $184,961,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $180,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $181,358,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $180,318,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $177,388,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $177,547,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $188,757,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $194,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $193,441,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $198,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $197,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $211,365,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $209,954,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $208,844,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $207,308,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $206,401,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $204,744,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,658,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $57,538,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $60,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,293,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $67,982,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,488,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,094,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,113,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,843,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,709,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,773,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $71,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,923,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $73,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $77,002,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $76,168,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,450,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $78,532,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $85,522,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $84,553,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,250,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,405,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,042,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,955,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,605,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,162,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,202,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,925,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,013,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,426,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,228,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,620,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,150,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,545,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,078,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,416,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,002,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,356,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,886,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $337,021,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $337,021,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $372,402,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $372,402,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $431,031,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $431,031,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $506,850,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $506,850,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $587,294,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $587,294,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $651,403,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $651,403,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $704,759,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $704,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $745,853,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $745,853,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $785,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $785,189,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $822,741,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $822,741,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $854,052,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $854,052,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,100,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,700,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,500,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $400,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,000,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $1,700,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $1,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,200,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,300,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,299,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $2,355,000,000.
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, -$72,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$72,355,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, -$78,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$78,532,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,378,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,632,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,632,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, -$83,956,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$83,956,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, -$90,374,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$90,374,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, -$91,882,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$91,882,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, -$95,566,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$95,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, -$98,215,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$98,215,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, -$101,362,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$101,362,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, -$107,098,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, -$107,098,000,000.

                 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 2014 is 5.8 percent 
     under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending:

[[Page 6045]]

       (A) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act expanded a 
     number of tax credits targeted at working families to boost 
     relief during hard economic times. The Better Off Budget 
     retains the improvements made to the Earned Income Tax Credit 
     (qualifying children and phase-out range), Child and 
     Dependent Care Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax 
     Credit. These credits fuel demand for American businesses by 
     putting money in the hands of families. The Better Off Budget 
     also adopts the EITC improvements proposed in President 
     Obama's Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request, which would double 
     the maximum credit and increase the income level at which the 
     credit is fully phased out. The proposal would also make the 
     credit available to young adult workers and raise the upper 
     age to 67, which harmonizes it with recent increases in the 
     Social Security full retirement age. With this reform, the 
     Better Off Budget would help reduce poverty for childless 
     households and provide substantial relief to approximately 
     13.5 million low-income workers.
       (B) As a part of its response to the recent financial 
     crisis, Congress wisely enacted tax provisions in the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and subsequent job 
     creation legislative packages that provided direct assistance 
     to working individuals. The expiration of both the Making 
     Work Pay tax credit and the temporary cut to the payroll tax 
     have slowed our country's economic recovery and taken money 
     out of the pockets of hard-working Americans. The Better Off 
     Budget implements a new Hard Work Tax Credit to reward 
     Americans for their hard work. This policy would provide a 
     refundable tax credit for 2014 and 2015 for up to $600 for 
     working individuals earning less than $95,000 and up to 
     $1,200 for households earning less than $190,000. The credit 
     would be continued in 2016 with the maximum amount of $300 
     for individuals and $600 for households. Through the 
     enactment of the Hard Work Tax Credit, the Better Off Budget 
     would immediately increase the disposable income of low and 
     middle income families.
       (C) The unemployment rate is still far higher than it was 
     when President George W. Bush signed the emergency benefits 
     program into law. Cutting unemployment benefits has damaged 
     our economic recovery. The Better Off Budget extends 
     Emergency Unemployment Compensation to 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 2014.
       (D) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act temporarily 
     increased benefit levels for beneficiaries of the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The Better Off 
     Budget would reverse recent SNAP cuts adopted in the 
     Agricultural Act of 2014 and return benefits to ARRA levels. 
     These reforms will help combat hunger and boost economic 
     growth.
       (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 5.7 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 5.0 
     percent under current law.
       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for non means-tested direct spending:
       (A) Medicare is a cornerstone of the American health care 
     system for more than 45 million American seniors. It is an 
     exemplary program that provides the most efficient care to a 
     segment of the population that costs more to treat. The 
     Better Off Budget protects beneficiaries and makes the system 
     even more efficient. It amends Part D of Medicare to allow 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate 
     prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers, 
     as the Department of Veterans Affairs currently does, which 
     will save Medicare $157 billion over 10 years and will reduce 
     costs for seniors. The budget adopts policies to prohibit 
     ``pay for delay'' agreements that reduce competition and 
     modifies periods of exclusivity to increase availability of 
     needed therapies. The budget also accelerates the use of 
     bundling payments as an alternative to fee-for-service 
     payments. It builds on Affordable Care Act efficiencies in 
     administration of information and payments. Using 
     standardized electronic systems of administration information 
     such as claims, billing payments and eligibility creates a 
     more efficient and less fragmented health care system.
       (B) The Better Off Budget recognizes that the economic 
     security of veterans, retirees, and the disabled has eroded 
     during the recent economic recession. The Better Off Budget 
     would reverse this trend by expanding benefits for these 
     Americans by adopting the Experimental Price Index for the 
     Elderly (CPI-E) to calculate cost-of-living adjustments 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. 
     Other measures do not adequately take into account rising 
     expenditures in retirement, such as health care costs, and 
     amount to cutting benefits for those on fixed incomes.

              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 2015 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2015.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 544, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Progressive Caucus 
brings to the House a budget that is a blueprint for economic growth 
and opportunity for all Americans.
  In the course of the last few weeks and certainly the last few days, 
we have heard over and over from our colleagues in various hearings and 
here on the floor about the growth gap in America, and the policies 
that are being reinforced in the Ryan budget, in my estimation, created 
that growth gap.
  We are here today with a budget that assures that we deal with all 
the gaps that the American people have, income inequality gap, wage 
disparity gap, education gap, the minimum wage gap, the gender pay gap 
between men and women, and the jobs gap that is present in our country 
at this point.
  The best way to get out of poverty is to go to work. Everybody knows 
that. Our budget, within 3 years, creates 8.8 million jobs.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the abbreviated remarks by my 
friend, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, belie the 
challenge before us with this budget. The Congressional Progressives, 
the far left in the House, don't disappoint with the budget that they 
bring to the floor today.
  What is the top line? Taxes, increasing taxes by $6.6 trillion over 
current policy; spending, increasing spending by $3.3 trillion dollars 
over current policy.
  What about that all-important issue of defense in a very dangerous 
world? A $7 billion increase--a $7 billion increase at a time when our 
Nation is seeing significant and increasing threats.
  Does it ever come into balance? Never--never does this budget come 
into balance.
  One would think that, given the challenges that we have from the 
debt--the $17 trillion-plus in debt--that this would be an 
irresponsible budget, and one would be correct in saying so.
  Let's look at some of the particulars here. Taxes, relative to the 
Republican budget, this alternative increases taxes by roughly $6.6 
trillion over 10 years. This caucus budget contains trillions of 
dollars in new tax increases focused on penalizing those who are 
creating wealth and creating jobs in this country.
  This budget that is being proposed today would actually decrease the 
number of jobs available. These are tax policies that are motivated out 
of a notion of ``fairness,'' but a warped notion of fairness, where the 
Tax Code's primary purpose is to redistribute income and equalize 
outcome. These policies clearly end up hampering growth and job 
creation.
  What about spending? Mr. Chairman, this budget that is being proposed 
spends a whopping $8.4 trillion more than the Republican budget--$8.4 
trillion, as if we had it growing on trees.

[[Page 6046]]

  It doubles down on the Obama administration's failed economic 
policies and stimulus program by calling for trillions of dollars of 
new domestic spending, borrowing more and more money from overseas, 
compromising our kids' and our grandkids' future.
  In the area of health--people look at the budget of the United 
States. They recognize that the biggest challenges that we have are in 
the area of health care spending, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, 
both of those programs going broke. Both of them going broke, bankrupt.
  What does that mean? It means that those programs, in a relatively 
short period of time, won't have the resources to be able to provide 
the services to seniors and those on Medicaid that have been promised 
to them, unless something is done.
  What does this budget do? It further increases the overreach of the 
Federal Government in the area of health care, putting the government 
in charge of health care, as opposed to individuals. It embraces a 
policy that would lead directly--directly--to completing the government 
takeover of health care.
  However, I do want to mention a bright light in this budget. The 
Progressive budget actually recognizes that the alternative, utilizing 
a block grant of Federal funding to the States, is a wise idea. We call 
it State flexibility, giving States greater flexibility with the use of 
resources; and I want to commend the Progressive Caucus for recognizing 
that that is a reasonable method of proceeding.
  What about job training? This budget expands the current broken 
Federal job training system by calling for more spending, despite the 
GAO's findings that dozens of Federal programs that already exist 
overlap and are duplicative. In fact, they harm the ability of jobs to 
be created.
  In January of 2011, the Government Accountability Office issued a 
report that found 47 overlapping Federal job training programs that 
spent approximately $18 billion in 2009. Does this budget do anything 
to decrease that duplication and redundant efforts? No, not a doggone 
thing.
  Then defense, as I mentioned at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, this 
substitute fails in the Federal Government's first responsibility, 
providing for the common defense. This substitute guts the defense 
budget by calling for $569 billion in cuts to the Pentagon, compared to 
the Republican budget. These are levels that would reduce military 
readiness and hollow out our forces.
  This is a very dangerous world, Mr. Chairman. You don't have to take 
my word for it. Listen to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
General Martin Dempsey, who recently testified:

       Our current security challenges are more formidable and 
     complex than those we faced in downturns following war in 
     Korea, Vietnam, and the cold war. There is no foreseeable 
     ``peace dividend'' on our horizon. The security environment 
     is increasingly competitive and dangerous.

  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that decreasing the ability of our men 
and women standing in harm's way and defending our liberty and freedom 
at this time is an absolutely reckless and irresponsible move.
  I know that our colleagues in the House of Representatives recognize 
that it is important to have all sorts of alternatives being proposed.
  I commend the Progressive Caucus for proposing this alternative, but 
any review of this budget recognizes that it spends more than it 
should, it taxes more than it should, it expands the role of government 
more than it should, and it doesn't address the real challenges of the 
day in a way that brings about positive and real solutions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, we hear over and over again from 
Republicans about how we can't afford to make investments in education 
and infrastructure and science and medical research, and we can't keep 
our promises to seniors; but at the same time, over the past 5 years, 
we have raised less Federal revenue, as a percent of GDP, than in any 
5-year period since 1941.
  But this country, my colleagues, has never been richer. The Wall 
Street Journal said last month:

       U.S. wealth rises, but not all benefit.

  The top 1 percent of earners have received 95 percent of the income 
gains in this country since 2009, and at least eight Americans earned 
more than $5 billion in income last year.
  So what is the disconnect? Why are we richer than ever before, but 
unable to invest in basic priorities?

                              {time}  1630

  The answer is that Paul Ryan and the House Republicans refuse to 
raise a dime from the millionaires, billionaires, and multinational 
corporations that dodge their fair share of taxes. It would even pad 
the pockets of the wealthiest Americans. The Ryan budget says, if you 
make $1 million next year, that budget would give you a $200,000 tax 
break.
  Our budget presents a stark contrast to the austerity proposals 
peddled by this Republican Congress. In order to add 8.8 million jobs 
to the economy over the next 3 years and provide Americans an 
opportunity to get a good education, find a job, live in a safe and 
secure home, and afford decent food, we raise revenue that is needed. 
We do so by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair 
share--yes, we do--and by closing egregious corporate loopholes, 
including incentives to ship jobs overseas. We would also cut $4 
trillion from the deficit over the next decade.
  Look, we can't build the economy for the many--not just the monied--
unless we make significant investments in our future. Those investments 
can and should be made by raising revenue and growing our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Better Off Budget.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice), a member of 
the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus' Better Off Budget is really a bigger government 
budget. The Progressive Caucus substitute increases total spending 
relative to the Republican budget by $8.4 trillion over the next 10 
years. American families, and particularly our children and our 
grandchildren, cannot afford this next year, and absolutely not for the 
next 10 years. This bigger government budget creates new taxes, more 
regulation, duplicative Federal programs, and will stifle progress 
across the board.
  People, this is not complicated. We need a budget that will grow our 
economy. Higher taxes, higher deficits, and bigger regulation will 
never grow the economy. If we put folks back to work, we solve a lot of 
problems. We solve unemployment problems, deficit problems, poverty 
problems, income inequality problems, crime problems, drug problems, 
and problems across the board.
  The number one issue in my district, and I believe the number one 
issue in this Nation, is jobs. Five years after the Great Recession, 
the economy continues to struggle, and far too many Americans remain 
out of work. Mr. Obama's Big Government economy has failed.
  We can solve this problem. It is not rocket science. We can build our 
economy and put hardworking Americans back to work if only we will take 
a few steps to make America more competitive. Just like counties across 
the country compete for jobs, just like States lower tax rates and 
streamline regulations to attract industry and jobs--and you can look 
at States and see what they are doing and how they are successful--we 
must adopt an attitude here in Washington that we will compete in the 
world if we expect to stop sending our jobs overseas and bring American 
jobs back home.
  If we retain the world's highest corporate tax rate, how can we 
expect to compete in the world? If Washington continues to spend more 
than we take in, threatening our entire economy, how can we expect to 
compete in the

[[Page 6047]]

world? If we continue to build upon our already oppressive regulatory 
burden, how can we expect to compete in the world?
  This is where I believe my friends across the aisle miss the mark. 
They seem to believe and preach that somehow making this country 
competitive benefits only the wealthy. But the truth is that people 
with high assets and high skills do well in a global environment. They 
can compete from anywhere.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. But the longer we wait to enter the 
global competition for jobs, the more we damage the hardworking folks 
in the middle class. We will not grow our economy or put people back to 
work by expanding entitlements. We will never solve the problems of 
poverty and inequality through bigger government.
  If America will enter the global competition for jobs, our economy 
will accelerate and the sky is the limit. This is not a Republican 
issue. This is not a Democrat issue. This is an American issue. We are 
so blessed that if we simply decide to compete, no one can stop us.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, it should be noted for my colleague that 
the Republican budget, according to the Economic Policy Institute, will 
slow the recovery, costing 1.1 million jobs in fiscal year 2015, rising 
to costing nearly 3 million jobs the next year. That is not a budget of 
growth.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison), the cochair.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, our Republican colleagues have been saying 
for maybe 100 years that if we don't regulate and have fair, good rules 
for health and safety and financial markets and in other areas of our 
economy, and if we don't tax people, the wealthy and corporations, then 
our economy will take off. They have been saying this for years. They 
didn't just start saying it with Bush or Reagan. They were saying it 
back in the thirties.
  Thank God the American people did not listen to them, because it was 
in the thirties that we put up the SEC, we put regulations on banks, 
and we put other sorts of health, safety, and commonsense regulations 
in place. Because of that, between 1948 and about 1975, we had an 
expanding economy. Sometimes tax rates were way higher than they are 
now.
  They are wrong. They don't know economic history, and so they 
continue to repeat Herbert Hoover-type myths that were dispelled 
decades ago. Oh, but they came back and they deregulated the economy in 
the late 1990s, and then in the early 2000s they cut taxes on the 
wealthy, and we have had a dismal jobs economy since that time.
  The Better Off Budget is here to present a better alternative that 
involves investment in our Nation's economy to put Americans back to 
work. The Better Off Budget puts 8.8 million Americans back to work by 
doing something that everyone--Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents--agrees that everyone needs: we invest in infrastructure. 
We put $820 billion into fixing our roads, our bridges, and our smart 
grids, into our transit systems and our wastewater treatment systems. 
We invest in our Nation's infrastructure.
  Just like under the great Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, as 
we invest in infrastructure, we put people to work building it, and we 
make our economy more productive as we use it. This is exactly what 
this version of Republicans--my goodness--doesn't understand, that you 
have got to invest in the economy in order to reap benefits from the 
economy.
  The Better Off Budget puts 8.8 million people back to work. The Ryan 
budget puts 3 million people out of work. Vote ``yes'' on the Better 
Off Budget today.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I request the remaining time 
on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 5\3/4\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Arizona has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Barbara Lee, the leader in the Progressive Caucus.
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank our cochairs, Congressmen 
Grijalva and Ellison, for their very hard work on this budget, which is 
a better-off budget. As former cochair of the Progressive Caucus, I 
rise in proud support of this budget because each year this budget 
continues to get better and better.
  As a member of the Budget and the Appropriations Committees, I was 
really, once again, appalled by the devastating cuts that the Ryan 
Republican budget makes to the safety net.
  The number one priority of our budget is fixing the jobs crisis, and 
that is exactly what the CPC budget would do. The Progressive Caucus 
budget asks the wealthiest 1 percent--Big Oil and huge corporations--to 
pay a little more, just a little more, so that we can afford to invest 
in the American people and create over 8 million jobs over the next 3 
years alone. The CPC budget replaces the disastrous sequester by 
supporting critical spending in education, infrastructure, and 
rejecting benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  While the Republican budget continues to keep the American Dream out 
of reach for all Americans, it would increase spending for the already-
bloated Pentagon budget.
  Chairman Ryan's report on poverty refuses to acknowledge the fact 
that Head Start and all of the Great Society initiatives have kept 
millions out of poverty. They have worked. Raising the minimum wage for 
single mothers provides a pathway out of poverty. Mr. Ryan's report 
does not acknowledge the facts. Taxpayers, for example, subsidize 
corporations to the tune of over $200 billion just to keep people in 
the ranks of the working poor.
  The CPC budget eliminates the Overseas Contingency Operations slush 
fund and supports a modern military able to face real, 21st-century 
threats. Once again, we provide economic growth and jobs in our budget, 
and we require the Pentagon--the largest single Federal agency with the 
highest waste, fraud, and abuse--to pass an audit and to pass it now.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. I just want to conclude by saying that we 
simply can't continue to write a blank check for spending on war if we 
are really going to have any chance of getting our fiscal house in 
order. We can't do this to America's struggling families and the 
working poor. That is what the American people deserve. With our 
budget, the Better Off Budget, our country will be better off.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, many of our Democratic colleagues have already spoken 
about what is wrong with the House Republican budget and how it slashes 
our investments in education, infrastructure, research and development, 
job training, and medical research; how it repeals all the benefits of 
the Affordable Care Act; how it leaves 7 million Americans without 
health insurance, ends the Medicare guarantee, and institutes massive 
cuts to our most vulnerable populations; how it pays for new tax cuts 
for millionaires by taking away tax breaks that help the working poor 
and the middle class--and that is all true. But I want to talk about 
the alternative vision for this country that we in the Progressive 
Caucus have crafted.
  The Better Off Budget meets the challenges that our communities face 
head-on. It expresses our belief that America's future is bright and 
worth investing in.
  One of the pieces I am most proud of is the application of the CPI-E 
to all

[[Page 6048]]

Federal retirement programs. The CPI-E uses the most accurate and 
sensible measure of the real costs that seniors face for programs like 
civil service retirement, military retirement, Supplemental Security 
Income, and the veterans' pensions.
  Seniors deserve a cost of living that accounts for the rising costs 
of retirement, such as health care. I urge my colleagues to support a 
better deal for our seniors, support a better future for our middle 
class, and support a vision that will leave us all better off. The 
Better Off Budget offers all of this.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble), a productive and active 
member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, they call it the Better Off Budget, but I 
am wondering who is really better off?
  It is certainly not the small business woman from California who, 
under this plan, maybe she is earning $260,000 a year--not a 
billionaire and millionaire like they claim--and she will see her 
combined taxes, Federal taxes and State taxes, exceed 51 percent. She 
is certainly not better off.
  How about the people she might have hired if she didn't have this tax 
increase? Well, they are not better off. Or maybe the people who work 
for her now who can't get a raise because she now is extended here? 
They are not better off. It is certainly not the businessowner who 
might provide a piece of equipment that this small business woman might 
buy but she no longer can afford. He is no longer better off. I can't 
see anybody who is better off under this system.
  Here I would ask--and I want to talk a little bit about freedom in 
this last minute. Imagine this same businesswoman getting up on January 
1, going to work and working all of January. She gets her paycheck, and 
it is zero because 100 percent was sent to Washington, D.C. she does it 
again in February, and it is zero because 100 percent gets sent to 
Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  1645

  She does it again in March and April and May, 100 percent of all her 
effort comes here. She doesn't get to keep a penny of it. All of the 
month of June, it all goes to government. This is not a free person. 
Mr. Chairman, I ask, is that free or is it indentured servitude?
  We have a free country where people should, in fact, be better off, 
and the way to make them better off is to let them keep what they earn, 
and that is what the House Republican budget does, and that is why I 
encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Progressive budget and 
vote ``yes'' on the House Budget Committee's budget.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, it should be noted the Republican budget, 
the Ryan budget, raises taxes for middle class families with kids by an 
average of $2,000 in order to coddle, I guess, the very wealthy in this 
country. They are better off; that middle class family is not.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a 
member of the Budget Committee and the Progressive Caucus.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the Better Off Budget will make our country 
more competitive and will create 8.8 million jobs through investments, 
repairing our roads and bridges, modernizing our waterways, and 
educating our young people. It is the only budget that gets America 
back to full employment, and does it within 3 years.
  The Better Off Budget puts an end to a system where CEOs pay a lower 
tax rate than their secretaries and corporations get unneeded tax 
breaks. This budget restores full funding to food stamps and 
strengthens Medicare and Medicaid. It makes a clear choice to support 
working and middle class families, seniors and those in need, and to 
reinstate fairness in our economy.
  For the fourth year in a row, Republicans choose to hurt the many 
while lavishing benefits on the wealthy few. They choose to slash 3 
million jobs and destroy the safety net. They choose to dismantle 
Medicare and Medicaid and slash aide to college students. They choose 
huge tax cuts for billionaires and tax increases for the middle class. 
The Republican budget makes a clear choice--billionaires before working 
Americans and seniors.
  The Better Off Budget is about building an economy that creates jobs 
and supports working and middle class families, not just the richest 1 
percent. I urge my colleagues to invest in this country and support the 
Better Off Budget.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 4 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Arizona has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, the House has put out a responsible budget 
under the Budget Committee that balances in 10 years. But this is an 
opportunity for us to actually see the vision, the ideas of the 
Democratic Party. If they were in control, what would they give us to 
try to bring America to a more sustainable path?
  What they give us, Mr. Chairman, is $6.6 trillion in new taxes. If I 
had $1 for every time I hear, ``If we just had a balanced approach and 
we could raise taxes on a millionaires and billionaires,'' if I had $1 
for each one of those comments, I think we would balance the budget.
  If that were the case, raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires, 
you would think that they would come up with a budget that actually 
balances. The bottom line, my friends across the aisle, even raising 
taxes on millionaires and billionaires, their budget never balances. In 
their ideal budget, the Medicare trust fund still goes bankrupt in 12 
years. If you are going to raise taxes, let's fix the problems. This is 
rife with huge issues.
  Listen, I think the real secret here that my friends on the other 
side of the aisle are not telling the American people is that they do 
have a way to pay for this, and the way to pay for it is not through 
millionaires and billionaires. They are going to pay it by taxing 
hardworking middle class families, raising their taxes in a way to pay 
for greater government spending. It is a budget that actually looks to 
government programs, government giveaways, instead of looking to the 
private sector to actually grow our economy.
  Listen, I think you couldn't have a better example of two different 
views about what direction you take the country: one of big government 
and big taxes on millionaires and billionaires and middle class 
Americans, or a responsible budget that reforms the way we spend, makes 
government responsible, and actually keeps our promises to the American 
people.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, budgets are about choices. We choose 
investment. We choose not to cut Medicare benefits to give tax breaks 
to the very wealthy, millionaires and billionaires in the country. It 
is a choice.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a 
member of the caucus.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the Better Off Budget would create 8.8 
million jobs over its first 3 years by investing in infrastructure, 
education, training, and research. It would invest $100 billion in 
teachers and schools and $81 billion in science.
  A person or a country invests with the hope and expectation that 
investing some resources now will give us a better future, give us 
savings, give us a better quality of life so that we will be better 
off. America's optimistic outlook has made America great and strong.
  The Ryan budget is a very pessimistic document. It is based on the 
premise that we cannot afford to invest in infrastructure and in 
science and education. We have to cut, we have to shrink, we have to 
reduce our efforts and hunker down. We can't afford to do things, 
anything.
  The wealthiest Nation on Earth should invest as if we have a future. 
Quite simply, the Better Off Budget invests as if we will have a 
tomorrow. It ends the absurd, pessimistic cuts of the Budget Control 
Act and the pessimistic Ryan budget.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The

[[Page 6049]]

gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Caucus' Better Off Budget 
is optimistic. It is about investing in America in job growth by 
investing in infrastructure, public works, and education. By repealing 
sequestration cuts, restoring funding for SNAP benefits and 
unemployment insurance and investing in programs to hire police, 
firefighters, and health care workers, the Better Off Budget will 
create 8.8 million good jobs by 2017. It also embodies our American 
values by implementing comprehensive immigration reform that includes a 
pathway to citizenship and protects our environment by addressing 
climate change. The Better Off Budget stands for our Nation's 
commitments by supporting veterans, protecting Medicare and Social 
Security, and implementing a fair tax system.
  I urge my colleagues, be optimistic about America. Make America 
better off by voting for the Progressive Caucus budget.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), a member of the caucus and the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from northwest 
Wisconsin is right: let's put the budgets side by side.
  The Better Off Budget will create 8.8 million jobs. The Republican 
Paul Ryan budget will cut 3 million jobs. That is equivalent to the 
entire workforce of the State of Wisconsin.
  If you have family with kids going to school, the Better Off Budget 
invests into hiring more teachers, invests in our schools and pre-K, 
invests in our college students. The Paul Ryan Republican budget, it 
cuts $18 billion in early education, $89 billion in K-12 education, and 
$205 billion in higher education. Oh, and if you get Pell grants, 
another $145 billion cut.
  Senior citizens, we invest in Medicare and Medicaid and we make sure 
you can negotiate for your drug prices. Seniors under the Republican 
budget, you voucherize Medicare and you will lose $732 billion in 
Medicaid. And, oh, yeah, we are going to open up the doughnut hole and 
you will pay more for prescription drugs.
  Finally, on taxes, we close corporate loopholes for gas and oil 
companies. We make sure that companies sending jobs overseas don't get 
tax breaks. The Republican budget, it cuts taxes on millionaires on 
average $200,000 each. And you know how it gets paid for? On the backs 
of the middle class, $2,000 per family.
  The head of the Budget Committee said it is a win/win budget. It is a 
win for the top 1 percent. It is a win for the second percentile, and 
the other 98 percent of us pay the difference.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this budget is about choice. The Better 
Off Budget believes in the American people. It believes in investing in 
the American people and in their future. It is the best road to 
economic health and full economic opportunity in this country.
  Our budget does not look at government or the American people with 
disdain. We feel that government has a role, quite frankly, to 
stimulate, to support, and to take care of the American people as we 
grow our economy. We can't cut our way out of what we are in; we need 
to grow our way out. The Ryan budget continues the same pattern of 
austerity that is sinking us deeper into unemployment, lack of jobs, 
and lack of investment in the American people.
  I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the Congressional Progressive 
Better Off Budget. We feel it is a strong budget and that it represents 
the ideals of the American people. We trust the American people, and we 
invest in the American people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about this 
budget, a lot of information, and a lot of numbers have been tossed 
around. My friends on the other side say that their budget will create 
8.8 million jobs; where does that come from? It was made up. They say 
that our budget slashes 3 million jobs; where does that come from? It 
was made up. They say our budget will increase taxes on the middle 
class; where does that come from? It was made up.
  What is a fact about jobs? A fact about jobs is the President's 
health care law, the Congressional Budget Office has said, will 
decrease the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs. That is a fact. That is a 
fact.
  So if my friends, my colleagues in the House here, if you want to 
increase taxes by $6.6 trillion, vote for their budget. If you want 
$8.4 trillion in more spending over the next decade, vote for their 
budget. If you want to increase debt by $8.2 trillion more than the 
Republican budget, vote for that budget.
  We believe there is a better way, that there are real solutions. We 
recognize this is a dangerous world; therefore, we increase spending on 
defense and making certain that our men and women who stand in harm's 
way have the resources they need. We believe that opportunity needs to 
be expanded and pro-growth tax policies are the things that get the 
economy rolling again and get jobs being created.
  We understand that Medicare and Medicaid are in difficult straits 
financially, something that our friends on the other side of the aisle 
bury their heads in the sand about, so we put in place in our budget a 
program to save and strengthen and secure Medicare and Medicaid, 
recognizing that patients need to be in charge of health care, not the 
Federal Government.
  We recognize that energy policy needs to be expanded so that we 
responsibly utilize the blessing and the resources that have been 
provided so that we can become energy independent as a country and not 
rely on nations that don't like us.
  We also recognize that balancing the budget is imperative if we are 
going to get our fiscal house in order and get our economy back on 
track. Our budget is the only budget that is being presented on the 
floor of this House, compared to the other side of the aisle, that gets 
to balance. Our budget, compared to the other side of the aisle, not 
only gets to balance, gets us on a path to paying off our entire debt. 
It is a positive, optimistic budget. I urge support of the Republican 
budget and defeat of the Progressive budget.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Budget because it would replace 
H. Con. Res. 96, the ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2015,'' with a 
rational approach for budgetary reform and address the needs of real 
people.
  I oppose H. Con. Res. 96, in its current form because it is 
irresponsible and a reckless approach to fiscal policy that the House 
majority has championed for years, with disastrous results.
  The CPC's ``Better Off Budget'' would raise enough new revenue to 
provide $3.7 trillion for major new investments in education, 
infrastructure, state and local aid, nutrition, housing and research. 
It is estimated to create 8.8 million new jobs and to reduce the 
deficit by $4 trillion.
  The CPC budget asks the wealthy to contribute their fair share of 
taxes.
  Millions of American adults remain under- or unemployed, while 
millions more youth are desperately seeking their first work 
experience.
  We have millions of people living in our Nation, paying taxes and 
contributing to the success of this nation, but are denied an 
opportunity to earn citizenship.
  The CPC's budget reflects the reality of everyday working America--
but it sees working people as worthy of dignity and recognition for 
what they do every day to keep this nation strong.
  The CPC's Budget is pro-worker, pro-family, pro-women, pro-education, 
pro-healthcare, and pro-senior which are the values that are missing in 
the current language of H. Con. Res. 96.
  Members of the Progressive Caucus understand that the devastating 
cuts to federal budgets by House Republicans coupled with Sequestration 
have significantly hampered our Nation's economic recovery.

[[Page 6050]]

  The country was under the control of Republicans when the economy 
crashed in 1929 and then they wholeheartedly embraced austerity 
measures which pushed the nation into the ``Great Depression.''
  Eighty years later the House Republicans still have not learned the 
lessons regarding austerity during dire economic times.
  The nation continues to struggle after the collapse in 2008 as the 
results of the Great Recession continue.
  In 2013, on December 28, three days after Christmas, 1.3 million 
people nationwide lost their federal unemployment insurance due to 
House Republicans refusing to extend unemployment benefits.
  Connecting the dots on the economic damage done to the nation by that 
decision is easy.
  Nationally 72,000 unemployment insurance recipients will lose their 
benefits each week during the first half of 2014.
  According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers and the 
Department of Labor--3.6 million additional people will lose their 
unemployment insurance benefits by the end of 2014 if nothing is done 
to restore benefits.


                                 TEXAS

  64,294 unemployed Texas residents lost their unemployment insurance 
benefits.
  Each week an additional 4,112 Texans will lose their unemployment 
insurance benefits.
  Unemployment insurance payments provide partial income replacement to 
unemployed workers who meet the requirements of state law.
  According to the White House Council of Economic Advisers and the 
Department of Labor, Texas will lose 11,766 jobs if unemployment 
insurance payments are not reinstated.
  To compound this economic reality the nation's families and workers 
are struggling to make it in a weak private sector economy that is 
recovering, while federal, state and local government jobs are going 
unfilled.
  Public sector hiring is at its lowest point in 47 years, when the 
nation's population was over 146 million. In 2013, the U.S. population 
was over 317 million.
  The need for public services is greater than they were in 1947, and 
the generation of public jobs should keep pace with domestic population 
growth.
  The government shutdown last year was a direct result of the majority 
not believing that public employees make contributions to the quality 
of life in the United States or make a significant contribution to the 
nation's overall economic wellbeing.
  The Better Off Budget rectifies this inaccurate view of the role of 
government at all levels, by ending the ill advised austerity measures 
enacted by the Budget Control Act, sequestration, and SNAP benefit 
cuts, and replacing them with solutions to create 8.8 million jobs by 
2017.
  The CPC budget would enact comprehensive immigration reform and at 
the same time reduce the federal budget deficit by $700 billion over 
the next 20 years.
  The CPC budget would also enact a tax code that makes sense for all 
Americans by introducing tax fairness and implementing a ``Hard Work 
Tax Credit,'' expanding EITC, and stronger regulatory measures to 
reduce the incidence of extreme volatility in financial markets with 
the introduction of a Financial Speculation Tax.
  The CPC's Better Off Budget outlines a viable alternative to H. Con. 
Res. 96 with a perspective on the future that allows for an improving 
economy to be factored into how spending and appropriations decisions 
should be made.
  America's economy at this point could be said to be in the early 
recovery phase of a very bad case of the flu, the Ryan Budget would 
turn it into the early stages of pneumonia.
  The CPC budget makes a clear and unambiguous commitment to our 
nation's children and their future that H. Con. Res 96 does not.
  The CPC budget understands that children are our nation's greatest 
asset. Children are not small adults, they are growing and their bodies 
must have certain things that are nonnegotiable.
  Children need safe, correctly prepared, nutritious food; clean 
drinking water, adequate shelter, seasonal clothing, safe toys, 
excellent education, healthcare, and safe environments to grow and 
learn so that they have a good chance of reaching their full potential.
  In addition, children with disabilities must also have competent 
caregivers who are knowledgeable on how to best help them successfully 
engage the world during their day to day lives in preparation of them 
living independently.
  Children with chronic conditions like asthma, sickle cell anemia, 
autism, respiratory disorders, cognitive disorders, brain injuries, 
physical disabilities, muscular dystrophy or other serious medical 
conditions should not be robbed of a childhood or their independence as 
adults.
  All children can benefit from efforts that are aimed at keeping them 
safe from preventable injury, illness, and death.
  Parents and families fill an indispensible role in the lives of 
children, and the CPC budget recognizes that there is a strong public 
interest in ensuring that children have the opportunity to achieve 
their full potential.
  It is in the public interest that children are free of disease, 
illness, injury, violence, consume sufficient amounts of foods with 
high nutritional value that support health growth, arrive to the 
learning environment ready to learn. Parents, teachers, communities and 
students should be empowered to decide for themselves how best to build 
strong collaborative relationships to reach these basic goals in 
support of their children.
  The interconnectedness of economies makes the welfare of children in 
the United States critical to the future of our nation. If we are to 
remain globally relevant we must understand that our nation's ability 
to remain first in the areas of innovation, commerce, science, 
engineering, and global relevance is tied to how well the next 
generation is physically, mentally and emotionally prepared to lead, 
support, or engage their futures.
  We are at a point where children receive less than 8 percent of the 
federal budget. Since the peak in 2010, totaling $35 billion in 
spending on children there has been a 16 percent drop. Total spending 
on children has declined for three years in a row according to First 
Focus, a bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to 
improving the lives of children and families.
  The CPC Budget plan will protect and strengthen programs that support 
children and their families as well as address the needs of our 
recovering economy, reduce the deficit in a responsible way, while 
continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong like 
education, health care, innovation, and clean energy.
  Mr. Chair, this Republican budget is bad for America but the CPC's 
budget is the cure.
  1. If the Republican budget resolution were to become the basis of 
federal fiscal policy, 3,435,336 Texas seniors would be forced out of 
traditional Medicare and into a voucher program. Under the Republican 
plan to end Medicare as we know it, Texas seniors will receive a 
voucher instead of guaranteed benefits under traditional Medicare.
  2. For the 3,435,336 Texans aged 45-54, the value of their vouchers 
would be capped at growth levels that are lower than the projected 
increases in health care costs. Previous analyses showed that this type 
of plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, forcing them to 
spend more out of pocket and diminishing their access to quality care.
  3. Additionally, private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the 
healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare--
currently the lifeline for 3,187,332 Texas seniors--to ``wither on the 
vine.''
  4. If the Republican budget resolution were to be adopted by 
Congress, 206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs 
next year.
  5. The Republican plan would re-open the ``donut hole,'' forcing 
seniors to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs if their 
yearly drug expenses are more than $2,970 for the year.
  6. Seniors reaching the prescription drug ``donut hole'' would pay an 
average of $828 more in prescription drug costs in 2014 and 
approximately $13,000 more from now through 2022.
  7. Under the Republican budget, the 2,445,462 Texas seniors who 
utilized free preventive services currently covered by Medicare in 2012 
will face increased costs in the form of higher deductibles, co-
insurance, and copayments for certain services, including even cancer 
screenings and annual wellness visits.
  8. The Republican budget slashes $31.71 billion in nursing home care 
and other health care services for 754,500 Texas seniors and disabled 
who currently rely on Medicaid for their long-term care needs.
  9. The draconian cuts included in the Republican budget would have a 
devastating impact on the 1,191 certified nursing homes in Texas that 
serve 91,717 seniors, with more than half relying on Medicaid as their 
primary payer. As a result, nursing homes would be forced to slash 
services, turn away seniors, or close their doors.
  Mr. Chair, the Better Off Budget enhances programs that close the 
growing wealth gap, including ensuring equal access to job 
opportunities, properly funding public education and

[[Page 6051]]

enhancing programs that allow American families to get through tough 
times. Women and communities of color have been disproportionately 
impacted by recent budget cuts, particularly at the state and local 
levels.
  The CPC budget increases the Education, Training and Social Services 
budget function by $243 billion and the Income Security budget function 
by $323 billion over 10 years.
  Specifically, the Alternative Budgets proposed by the CPC: help 
create more jobs now; replace the sequester; make key education 
investments; invest in research and development and clean energy; 
invest in long-term infrastructure; preserve Medicare as we know it; 
protect health reform's benefits for seniors; protect Medicaid for 
seniors in nursing homes; preserve Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
(SNAP); reduce the deficit through a smart, targeted, and steady 
approach provides tax relief for working families and ends tax breaks 
for the wealthy; take a balanced approach to reducing the long-term 
deficits and debt; and put the budget on a sustainable path.
  It is said often, Mr. Chair, 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.''
  For that reason 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 
Democratic alternatives do not. For these compelling reasons, I stand 
in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 96 and urge my colleagues to join 
me in voting against this ill-conceived and unwise measure.

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


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-405 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
  Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 2, noes 
413, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 171]

                                AYES--2

     Kaptur
     Moran
       

                               NOES--413

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bass
     Burgess
     Carter
     Farenthold
     Flores
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Jackson Lee
     Lewis
     McAllister
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Ross
     Runyan
     Schwartz
     Williams

                              {time}  1724

  Messrs. BROUN of Georgia and ROKITA changed their votes from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''

[[Page 6052]]

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


   Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Ms. Moore

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 116, 
noes 300, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               AYES--116

     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--300

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bass
     Carter
     Farenthold
     Flores
     Green, Al
     Jackson Lee
     Lewis
     McAllister
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Ross
     Runyan
     Schwartz
     Tiberi
     Williams

                              {time}  1731

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


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

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89, 
noes 327, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                                AYES--89

     Beatty
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fudge
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lowenthal
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--327

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)

[[Page 6053]]


     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bass
     Carter
     Farenthold
     Flores
     Green, Al
     Jackson Lee
     Lewis
     McAllister
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Ross
     Runyan
     Schwartz
     Valadao
     Williams

                              {time}  1743

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Marchant) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. Con. 
Res. 96) establishing the budget for the United States Government for 
fiscal year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 2016 through 2024, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________