[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6104-6128]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Republican Study 
Committee's Back to Basics Budget for 2015.
  The RSC's budget solves a problem that threatens the future well-
being of this country, and that is the increasing size of the Federal 
Government's debt. The solution provided by the budget is simple. It 
requires the Federal Government to balance its budget in 4 years.
  Similar to the Ryan budget, the RSC proposal reduces discretionary 
spending, reforms Social Security, simplifies the Tax Code, and cuts 
wasteful spending, among other things.

                              {time}  0945

  I am particularly pleased with the RSC's inclusion of two of my bills 
that seek to eliminate some wasteful spending. We eliminate the 
Commission to Nowhere, and we eliminate the MAP

[[Page 6105]]

Act, and we save $10 million by doing that.
  Time and again, the Denali Commission has been found to perform 
duplicative work that should be carried out by State and local 
governments. This view is supported across the board, from Citizens 
Against Government Waste, to the Heritage Foundation, to even President 
Obama.
  In fact, the inspector general of the Denali Commission recently 
called it ``a congressional experiment that hasn't worked out'' and 
suggested that ``Congress put its money elsewhere.''
  The waste within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Market Access 
Program is also disturbing. The MAP program, though intended to 
increase international consumption of American products, has financed 
lavish international travel and marketing expenses for some of our 
already most successful companies.
  Under this program, taxpayer dollars have paid for international 
educational wine tastings from London to Mexico, and financed an 
animated series in Spain chronicling the adventures of a squirrel named 
Super Twiggy and his nemesis, the Colesterator.
  Our national debt stands at over $17 trillion. Such debt puts our 
country's security, economy, and everything else at risk.
  Let's pass this today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Maryland if he 
has any speakers remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No, I do not.
  Mr. WOODALL. I would ask the gentleman if he would like to give me 
the opportunity to close?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The gentleman is free to lead off.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have talked about tax breaks for the rich here. There are no such 
tax breaks in this budget. We have talked about the preservation of 
corporate loopholes. There are no such preservation of corporate 
loopholes in this budget.
  I will say it again. This is the only budget that we will vote on 
that includes the Tax Code Termination Act, which admits to one another 
that the tax system we have today is broken. Republicans and Democrats 
alike have riddled it beyond repair with special interest loopholes, 
exemptions, breaks, and special carve-outs.
  I, Mr. Chairman, am the cosponsor, the lead sponsor of the Fair Tax, 
the only proposal on Capitol Hill that abolishes every single 
deduction, exemption, exception in the Tax Code. So nonsense, if folks 
will suggest that this is a budget for special interests.
  Let me tell you what this is a budget for. This is a budget for 
working Americans, because, Mr. Chairman--you saw it earlier when the 
chairman of the Republican Study Committee held up this chart. The red 
line represents a pathway of economic ruin contained in the President's 
budget.
  The President talks about a balanced approach, and yet his approach 
never balances. The Republican Study Committee budget balances more 
quickly than any other budget proposal that we will discuss.
  Does it have to make tough choices to do it?
  Yes, it does. What is the benefit of those tough choices, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The benefit is in interest savings alone. If you support NIH, as I 
do, with just the interest savings between our budget and the 
President's budget, we couldn't just double NIH funding, we could 
triple it, not just this year but every year in the budget window.
  Mr. Chairman, on our current path, by 2017 we are going to be 
spending more on interest on the national debt than we spend on the 
entire Medicaid program to care for our children and our elderly.
  By 2020 we will spend more on interest on the national debt under the 
President's proposal than we will on all national security concerns 
combined.
  There is not a family in America, Mr. Chairman, that believes they 
can borrow their way into prosperity.
  The interest that we pay on the debt that the President proposes that 
this Nation borrow steals opportunities from our children. It is 
immoral to advance our generation today at the expense of generations 
tomorrow.
  Does this budget make tough choices?
  It does. There is only one budget that we will be considering today, 
Mr. Chairman, that takes steps to protect and preserve Social Security. 
That is the RSC budget.
  There are only two budgets that we will be considering today that 
take steps to ensure the solvency of Medicare for generations to come. 
That is the RSC budget and the Budget Committee budget.
  Mr. Chairman, you cannot talk about a balanced approach that does not 
balance. You cannot talk about making tough decisions if you are 
willing to do nothing to save those programs, Medicare and Social 
Security, that so many of our families back home rely on.
  We know those programs are headed towards destruction, which is why 
the RSC has made the very difficult choice to begin saving them today.
  It will only get harder if we put those decisions off until tomorrow. 
We say, do it today.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Republican Study Committee 
budget, as has been key voted out of organizations across this town.
  I will end as I began. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland 
recognizing the support of those outside organizations, and those are 
organizations committed to balancing this budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be great if we could all believe in magic.
  The gentleman says that their budget closes all the tax loopholes. No 
tax loopholes. In fact, he says theirs is the only budget that 
terminates the Tax Code all together, gets rid of it.
  That is interesting because, if you look at the revenue levels coming 
in under his budget, it is identical to the current Tax Code, every 
year, exactly as the Congressional Budget Office says, dollar for 
dollar.
  In fact, I think he said he got rid of it in fiscal year 2017 or so. 
But, gee, the dollars keep rolling in just as they would be if you 
didn't get rid of the Tax Code.
  And you know why?
  Because they don't close any of the special interest tax breaks. It 
is the status quo in terms of the revenue coming in.
  If we were, in fact, going to close some of those special interest 
tax breaks, so that we could reduce our deficits, then you wouldn't 
have those numbers that they have got in their budget resolution.
  Now, look, we all agree that we need to impose fiscal discipline. The 
question all along has been, how do we do it?
  Do we do it in a way where we share responsibility as Americans, or 
do we do it in a way where some people don't have to pay anything, 
which means everybody else has to get hit that much harder?
  Under the Republican budget, and under this Republican study group 
budget even more, they protect the very wealthy. You are doing great. 
But at the expense of everybody else.
  So the gentleman talks about more funds for the National Institutes 
of Health; they more than double the cuts to the National Institutes of 
Health from the earlier budget we saw, which, again, I would just 
remind our colleagues, it was the Republican chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee who said that the House Republican budget is 
draconian, that one. That is from Mr. Rogers. All right?
  So now this one is doubling down on draconian. And the question for 
us, as a country is, what are the consequences?
  What does that mean in people's lives?
  Well, it means real things. It means less funds for Head Start and 
early Head Start. It means a big cut to K-12 education.
  We have a bipartisan piece of legislation saying that Congress is 
already

[[Page 6106]]

failing to meet our commitments to special ed. We asked local school 
jurisdictions to take on the responsibility, it was the right thing to 
do, to make sure every kid got a good education. That was the right 
thing to do.
  But these guys would cut that program. So this is the wrong choice 
for America.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Republican 
Study Committee's budget proposal.
  Not only does the RSC budget balance in four years, reduce spending, 
and repeal Obamacare, the RSC budget proposal also recommends the House 
enact H.R. 352, the Tax Code Termination Act. This legislation, which I 
introduced at the beginning of the 113th Congress, would force Congress 
to debate comprehensive tax reform by sunsetting our current tax code 
in December 2017 and forcing Congress to enact a new tax system by July 
of that same year. This bipartisan legislation has the support of over 
100 Members of Congress who support a variety of tax proposals. I am 
pleased that the authors of the RSC budget have a desire to see these 
proposals debated and our complicated tax code addressed by setting a 
date certain for scrapping our tax code. I look forward to voting in 
support of the Republican Study Committee's budget and working with my 
fellow members of the Republican Study Committee to see that happen.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Denham). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, 
noes 291, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 175]

                               AYES--133

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Culberson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho

                               NOES--291

     Amodei
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Jackson Lee
     Lewis
     McAllister
     Miller, George
     Perlmutter
     Runyan
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1020

  Messrs. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, MARINO, GARAMENDI, AMODEI, RODNEY 
DAVIS of Illinois, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. SHIMKUS, MILLER of Florida, and SESSIONS changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


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

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 113-405.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting 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--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 201. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for job creation through 
              investments and incentives.
Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the President's opportunity, 
              growth, and security initiative.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing energy 
              independence and security.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and 
              service members.

[[Page 6107]]

Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for additional tax relief for 
              individuals and families.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the extension of expired or 
              expiring tax provisions.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicare improvement.
Sec. 208. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Medicaid and children's 
              health improvement.
Sec. 209. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for extension of expiring health 
              care provisions.
Sec. 210. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the health care workforce.
Sec. 211. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for initiatives that benefit 
              children.
Sec. 212. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for college affordability and 
              completion.
Sec. 213. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a competitive workforce.
Sec. 214. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 215. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for full funding of the Land and 
              Water Conservation Fund.
Sec. 216. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Affordable Housing Trust 
              Fund.

                TITLE III--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 301. Direct spending.

                    TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

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

                            TITLE V--POLICY

Sec. 501. Policy of the House on jobs: make it in America.
Sec. 502. Policy of the House on surface transportation.
Sec. 503. Policy of the House on tax reform and fairness for middle-
              class Americans.
Sec. 504. Policy of the house on increasing the minimum wage.
Sec. 505. Policy of the House on immigration reform.
Sec. 506. Policy of the House on extension of emergency unemployment 
              compensation.
Sec. 507. Policy of the House on the earned income tax credit.
Sec. 508. Policy of the House on women's empowerment: when women 
              succeed, America succeeds.
Sec. 509. Policy of the House on a national strategy to eradicate 
              poverty and increase opportunity.
Sec. 510. Policy of the House on Social Security reform that protects 
              workers and retirees.
Sec. 511. Policy of the House on protecting the Medicare guarantee for 
              seniors.
Sec. 512. Policy of the House on affordable health care coverage for 
              working families.
Sec. 513. Policy of the House on Medicaid.
Sec. 514. Policy of the House on national security.
Sec. 515. Policy of the House on climate change science.
Sec. 516. Policy of the House on investments in early childhood 
              education.
Sec. 517. Policy of the House on taking a balanced approach to deficit 
              reduction.
Sec. 518. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction 
              of unnecessary and wasteful spending.
Sec. 519. Policy of the House on the use of taxpayer funds.

                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: $2,592,835,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $2,759,265,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $2,883,321,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,000,046,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,126,171,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,264,915,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $3,420,419,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $3,654,473,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $3,942,611,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,138,354,000,000.
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $58,994,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $83,226,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $93,898,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $109,739,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $111,486,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $116,278,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $125,768,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $198,126,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $316,093,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $330,901,000,000.
       (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: $3,077,749,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,233,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,405,715,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,570,429,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,772,232,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,966,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,137,989,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,369,350,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,520,421,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,668,170,000,000.
       (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: $3,070,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,323,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,387,284,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,438,886,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,754,211,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $3,932,822,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $4,112,683,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $4,357,729,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $4,484,953,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $4,617,936,000,000.
       (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: $-477,782,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $-494,630,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $-503,963,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $-538,840,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $-628,040,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $-667,907,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $-692,264,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $-683,256,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $-542,342,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $-479,582,000,000.
       (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of the 
     public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $18,350,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $19,001,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,716,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,484,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,322,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $22,191,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $23,076,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $23,943,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $24,691,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $25,411,000,000,000.
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2015: $13,259,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016: $13,792,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017: $14,344,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018: $14,932,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019: $15,628,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020: $16,390,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021: $17,206,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022: $18,060,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023: $18,789,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024: $19,498,000,000,000.

     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, $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, $586,489,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $604,440,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $595,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $613,753,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $604,663,000,000.
       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, $43,703,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,562,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,736,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,731,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,838,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,649,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,917,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,590,000,000.

[[Page 6108]]

       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,065,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,349,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $51,734,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,065,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,172,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $49,276,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,361,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $50,360,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,602,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $51,486,000,000.
       (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,307,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,239,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,476,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,895,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,138,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,597,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,836,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,535,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,942,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,272,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,670,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,014,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $33,307,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,782,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,057,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,556,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $34,818,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,360,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $35,603,000,000.
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $7,178,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $7,631,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,636,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,566,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,012,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,816,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,813,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,902,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,156,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $4,994,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,428,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,111,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,677,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,226,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $4,862,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,445,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,069,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,291,000,000.
       (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,996,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $40,282,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $39,468,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,208,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $40,842,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $41,286,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,546,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $42,499,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,691,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $43,255,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,297,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $44,740,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,705,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $45,414,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,982,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $46,520,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,189,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $47,794,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,545,000,000.
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,492,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,430,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,171,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,592,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,822,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,971,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,707,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,920,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,555,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $20,858,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,892,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,321,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,090,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $21,569,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,581,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,044,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,957,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,443,000,000.
       (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,378,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,205,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,392,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-1,596,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,227,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-4,723,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,747,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-5,263,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $11,383,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $-10,550,000,000.
       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, $103,315,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $96,274,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $105,625,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,067,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $106,708,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,759,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $107,919,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $108,962,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,697,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $108,008,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,764,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $92,870,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,343,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,030,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,978,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,210,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $104,980,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $106,003,000,000.
       (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,272,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,387,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,701,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,337,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $22,180,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $19,041,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,408,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $18,556,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,275,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $17,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,498,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $15,797,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,532,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,808,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,775,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,601,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,068,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $13,725,000,000.
       (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $95,795,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $101,125,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $101,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $103,966,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $111,276,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $105,786,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $116,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $113,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $119,772,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $117,486,000,000.

[[Page 6109]]

       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $122,145,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $120,521,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $124,411,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $123,151,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $125,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $125,437,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,673,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $126,993,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $126,886,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $128,011,000,000.
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $490,900,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $492,926,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $554,738,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $557,377,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $611,852,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $609,361,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $635,432,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $635,628,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $669,537,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $668,913,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $714,614,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $703,684,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $743,224,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $741,798,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $782,412,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $780,624,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $823,381,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $821,591,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $866,300,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $864,887,000,000.
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $524,018,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $523,974,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $562,812,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $562,696,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $573,622,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $573,531,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $597,086,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $596,995,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $659,248,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $659,148,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $706,542,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $706,444,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $755,439,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $755,340,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $836,435,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $836,328,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $858,792,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $858,682,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $887,443,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $887,326,000,000.
       (13) Income Security (600):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $532,236,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $529,617,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $543,824,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $544,651,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $548,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $544,538,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $552,957,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $544,169,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $572,706,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $568,006,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $585,943,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $581,295,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $600,055,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $594,959,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $618,793,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $618,076,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $627,951,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $622,337,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $635,638,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $624,722,000,000.
       (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, $154,027,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $153,028,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $166,618,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $165,877,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $164,907,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $164,503,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $162,770,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $162,558,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $174,305,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $174,022,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $179,269,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $178,534,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $183,571,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $182,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $195,680,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $194,736,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $192,458,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $191,491,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $189,292,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $188,262,000,000.
       (16) Administration of Justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $48,395,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,345,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $56,655,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,120,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $62,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,693,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $65,253,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,467,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,193,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,404,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $63,976,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,557,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $66,016,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $69,298,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $68,688,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $71,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $70,765,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $73,573,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $72,916,000,000.
       (17) General Government (800):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,355,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $24,745,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $25,326,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $25,123,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $26,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $26,038,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $27,389,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $27,109,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $28,590,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,462,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $28,975,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,399,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $29,924,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,357,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $30,888,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,261,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $31,799,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,236,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $32,760,000,000.
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $366,897,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $366,897,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $423,329,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $423,329,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $500,508,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $500,508,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $589,466,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $589,466,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $665,970,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $665,970,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $731,425,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $731,425,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:

[[Page 6110]]

       (A) New budget authority, $787,730,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $787,730,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $842,243,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $842,243,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $893,181,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $893,181,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $936,153,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $936,153,000,000.
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,225,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,102,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $-1,978,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $943,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $790,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,705,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $2,328,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,288,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,701,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $6,458,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2020:
       (A) New budget authority, $-912,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,052,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2021:
       (A) New budget authority, $312,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $3,896,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2022:
       (A) New budget authority, $3,654,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $5,977,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2023:
       (A) New budget authority, $9,109,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $10,868,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2024:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,860,000,000.
       (B) Outlays, $16,770,000,000.
       (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/Global War on 
     Terrorism (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.

                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

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

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that provides for robust 
     Federal investments in America's infrastructure, incentives 
     for businesses, and support for communities or other measures 
     that create jobs for Americans and boost the economy. The 
     revisions may be made for measures that--
       (1) provide for additional investments in rail, aviation, 
     harbors (including harbor maintenance dredging), seaports, 
     inland waterway systems, public housing, broadband, energy, 
     water, and other infrastructure;
       (2) provide for additional investments in other areas that 
     would help businesses and other employers create new jobs; 
     and
       (3) provide additional incentives, including tax 
     incentives, to help small businesses, nonprofits, States, and 
     communities expand investment, train, hire, and retain 
     private-sector workers and public service employees;

     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure does 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 
     2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PRESIDENT'S 
                   OPPORTUNITY, GROWTH, AND SECURITY INITIATIVE.

       (a) In General.--The chairman of the House Committee on the 
     Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other 
     appropriate levels in this resolution for any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report that increases, 
     by the same amounts for defense and non-defense, the 2015 
     limits on discretionary spending in the Bipartisan Budget Act 
     of 2013 by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure does not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2014 to 
     fiscal year 2024.
       (b) Funding of Additional Priorities.--The increase in the 
     discretionary caps will allow additional funding for key 
     priorities, including--
       (1) enhance early childhood and K-12 education;
       (2) expand scientific research and innovation funding;
       (3) provide jobs and meet infrastructure needs;
       (4) expand opportunity and mobility for Americans;
       (5) enhance public health, safety, and security;
       (6) make the government more efficient and effective; and
       (7) promote military readiness.

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

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that--
       (1) provides tax incentives for or otherwise encourages the 
     production of renewable energy or increased energy 
     efficiency;
       (2) encourages investment in emerging clean energy or 
     vehicle technologies or carbon capture and sequestration;
       (3) provides additional resources for oversight and 
     expanded enforcement activities to crack down on speculation 
     in and manipulation of oil and gas markets, including 
     derivatives markets;
       (4) limits and provides for reductions in greenhouse gas 
     emissions;
       (5) assists businesses, industries, States, communities, 
     the environment, workers, or households as the United States 
     moves toward reducing and offsetting the impacts of 
     greenhouse gas emissions; or
       (6) facilitates the training of workers for these 
     industries (``clean energy jobs'');

     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 
     2014 to fiscal year 2024.

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

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that--
       (1) enhances the delivery of health care to the Nation's 
     veterans and service members, including the treatment of 
     post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental illnesses, 
     and increasing the capacity to address health care needs 
     unique to women veterans;
       (2) makes improvements to the Post 9/11 GI Bill to ensure 
     that veterans receive the educational benefits they need to 
     maximize their employment opportunities;
       (3) improves disability benefits or evaluations for wounded 
     or disabled military personnel or veterans, including 
     measures to expedite the claims process;
       (4) expands eligibility to permit additional disabled 
     military retirees to receive both disability compensation and 
     retired pay (concurrent receipt); or
       (5) eliminates the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan 
     annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity 
     compensation;

     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 
     2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL TAX 
                   RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES.

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

[[Page 6111]]

     year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal 
     year 2024.

     SEC. 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE EXTENSION OF 
                   EXPIRED OR EXPIRING TAX PROVISIONS.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that extends provisions of 
     the tax code that have expired or will expire in the future, 
     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 
     2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICARE 
                   IMPROVEMENT.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that makes improvements to 
     Medicare, including making reforms to the Medicare payment 
     system for physicians that build on delivery reforms 
     underway, such as advancement of new care models, and--
       (1) changes incentives to encourage efficiency and higher 
     quality care in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal 
     sustainability;
       (2) improves payment accuracy to encourage efficient use of 
     resources and ensure that patient-centered primary care 
     receives appropriate compensation;
       (3) supports innovative programs to improve coordination of 
     care among all providers serving a patient in all appropriate 
     settings;
       (4) holds providers accountable for their utilization 
     patterns and quality of care; and
       (5) makes no changes that reduce benefits available to 
     seniors and individuals with disabilities in Medicare;

     by the amounts provided, together with any savings from 
     ending Overseas Contingency Operations, in such measure if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 
     or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 208. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MEDICAID AND 
                   CHILDREN'S HEALTH IMPROVEMENT.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that improves Medicaid or 
     other children's health programs, by the amounts provided in 
     such measure if such measure would not increase the deficit 
     for either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to 
     fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. 
     Such improvements may include demonstrations around 
     psychiatric care for special populations and helping states 
     improve the provision of long-term care.

     SEC. 209. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EXTENSION OF 
                   EXPIRING HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that extends expiring 
     Medicare, Medicaid, or other health provisions, by the 
     amounts provided in such measure if such measure would not 
     increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 
     2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 210. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE HEALTH CARE 
                   WORKFORCE.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that improves the 
     contemporary health care workforce's ability to meet emerging 
     demands, by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 
     or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. Such improvements 
     may include an expansion of the National Health Service 
     Corps, an extension of the enhanced Medicaid primary care 
     reimbursement rates that bring Medicaid primary care payment 
     rates up to Medicare levels using Federal funds, and an 
     expansion of the enhanced reimbursement rates to mid-level 
     providers who practice independently.

     SEC. 211. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INITIATIVES THAT 
                   BENEFIT CHILDREN.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that improves the lives of 
     children by the amounts provided in such measure if such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 
     or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024. Improvements may 
     include:
       (1) Extension and expansion of child care assistance.
       (2) Changes to foster care to prevent child abuse and 
     neglect and keep more children safely in their homes.
       (3) Changes to child support enforcement to encourage 
     increased parental support for children, particularly from 
     non-custodial parents, including legislation that results in 
     a greater share of collected child support reaching the child 
     or encourages States to provide access and visitation 
     services to improve fathers' relationships with their 
     children. Such changes could reflect efforts to ensure that 
     States have the necessary resources to collect all child 
     support that is owed to families and to allow them to pass 
     100 percent of support on to families without financial 
     penalty. When 100 percent of child support payments are 
     passed to the child, rather than to administrative expenses, 
     program integrity is improved and child support participation 
     increases.
       (4) Regular increases in funding for the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to put the Federal 
     Government on a 10-year path to fulfill its commitment to 
     America's children and schools by providing 40 percent of the 
     average per pupil expenditure for special education.

     SEC. 212. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE 
                   AFFORDABILITY AND COMPLETION.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that makes college more 
     affordable and increases college completion, including 
     efforts to: encourage States and higher education 
     institutions to improve educational outcomes and access for 
     low- and moderate-income students; ensure continued full 
     funding for Pell grants; or help borrowers lower and manage 
     their student loan debt through refinancing and expanded 
     repayment options, by the amounts provided in such measure if 
     such measure would not increase the deficit for either of the 
     following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 
     or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 213. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A COMPETITIVE 
                   WORKFORCE.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that helps ensure that all 
     Americans have access to good-paying jobs by fully 
     reauthorizing the Trade Adjustment Assistance program or 
     funding other effective job training and employment programs 
     by the amounts provided in such measure if such measure would 
     not increase the deficit for either of the following time 
     periods: fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 
     2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 214. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND 
                   SCHOOLS.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that makes changes to or 
     provides for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools 
     and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
     393) by the amounts provided by that legislation for those 
     purposes, if such legislation requires sustained yield timber 
     harvests obviating the need for funding under Public Law 106-
     393 in the future and would not increase the deficit for 
     either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to 
     fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024.

     SEC. 215. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FULL FUNDING OF 
                   THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that provides full funding 
     for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by the amounts 
     provided in such measure if such measure would not increase 
     the deficit for either of the following time periods: fiscal 
     year 2014 to fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal 
     year 2024.

     SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE AFFORDABLE 
                   HOUSING TRUST FUND.

       The chairman of the House Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report that capitalizes the existing 
     Affordable Housing Trust Fund by the amounts provided in such 
     measure if such measure would not increase the deficit for 
     either of the following time periods: fiscal year 2014 to 
     fiscal year 2019 or fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2024.

                TITLE III--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

     SEC. 301. DIRECT SPENDING.

       (a) Means-Tested Direct Spending.--
       (1) For means-tested direct spending, the average rate of 
     growth in the total level of outlays during the 10-year 
     period preceding fiscal year 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.

[[Page 6112]]

       (3) The following reforms are proposed in this concurrent 
     resolution for means-tested direct spending: The resolution 
     rejects cuts to the social safety net that lifts millions of 
     people out of poverty. It assumes extension of the tax 
     credits from the American Taxpayer Relief Act due to expire 
     at the end of 2017. These credits include an increase in 
     refundability of the child tax credit, relief for married 
     earned income tax credit filers, and a larger earned income 
     tax credit for larger families. It also assumes expansion of 
     the earned income tax credit for childless workers, a group 
     that has seen limited support from safety net programs.
       (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: For Medicare, 
     this budget rejects proposals to end the Medicare guarantee 
     and shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing 
     Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of 
     private insurance. Such proposals will expose seniors and 
     persons with disabilities on fixed incomes to unacceptable 
     financial risks, and they will weaken the traditional 
     Medicare program. Instead, this budget builds on the success 
     of the Affordable Care Act, which made significant strides in 
     health care cost containment and put into place a framework 
     for continuous innovation. This budget supports comprehensive 
     reforms to give physicians and other care providers 
     incentives to provide high-quality, coordinated, efficient 
     care, in a manner consistent with the goals of fiscal 
     sustainability. It makes no changes that reduce benefits 
     available to seniors and individuals with disabilities in 
     Medicare. In other areas, the resolution assumes extension of 
     emergency unemployment compensation, additional funding for 
     surface transportation, a new initiative for early childhood 
     education, and extension of the American Opportunity Tax 
     Credit, which assists with higher education expenses.

                    TITLE IV--ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
     subsection (b), any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report making a general appropriation or 
     continuing appropriation may not provide for advance 
     appropriations.
       (b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided--
       (1) for fiscal year 2016 for programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory 
     statement of managers to accompany this resolution under the 
     heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new 
     budget authority, and for 2017, accounts separately 
     identified under the same heading; and
       (2) for all discretionary programs administered by the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority 
     provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2015.

     SEC. 402. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Program Integrity Initiatives Under the Budget Control 
     Act.--
       (1) Social security administration program integrity 
     initiatives.--In the House, prior to consideration of any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     making appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that appropriates 
     amounts as provided under section 251(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall 
     be increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2015.
       (2) Health care fraud and abuse control program.--In the 
     House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2015 that appropriates amounts as provided under 
     section 251(b)(2)(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, the allocation to the House 
     Committee on Appropriations shall be increased by the amount 
     of additional budget authority and outlays resulting from 
     that budget authority for fiscal year 2015.
       (b) Additional Program Integrity Initiatives.--
       (1) Internal revenue service tax compliance.--In the House, 
     prior to consideration of any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report making appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2015 that appropriates $9,445,000,000 for the 
     Internal Revenue Service for enhanced enforcement to address 
     the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid) and provides an 
     additional appropriation of up to $480,000,000, to the 
     Internal Revenue Service and the amount is designated for 
     enhanced tax enforcement to address the tax gap, the 
     allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2015.
       (2) Unemployment insurance program integrity activities.--
     In the House, prior to consideration of any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report making 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2015 that appropriates 
     $133,000,000 for in-person reemployment and eligibility 
     assessments, reemployment services and training referrals, 
     and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews for the 
     Department of Labor and provides an additional appropriation 
     of up to $25,000,000, and the amount is designated for in-
     person reemployment and eligibility assessments, reemployment 
     services and training referrals, and unemployment insurance 
     improper payment reviews for the Department of Labor, the 
     allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations shall be 
     increased by the amount of additional budget authority and 
     outlays resulting from that budget authority for fiscal year 
     2015.
       (c) Procedure for Adjustments.--In the House, prior to 
     consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report, the chairman of the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall make the adjustments set forth in this 
     subsection for the incremental new budget authority in that 
     measure and the outlays resulting from that budget authority 
     if that measure meets the requirements set forth in this 
     section.

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

       (a) Emergency Needs.--If any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report makes appropriations for 
     discretionary amounts and such amounts are designated as 
     necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to this 
     subsection, then new budget authority and outlays resulting 
     from that budget authority shall not count for the purposes 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, or this resolution.
       (b) Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the House, if any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report makes 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for overseas contingency 
     operations and such amounts are so designated pursuant to 
     this paragraph, then the allocation to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations may be adjusted by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation for that purpose up to, but not to exceed, 
     the total amount of budget authority the President requests 
     for overseas contingency operations for 2015 in a detailed, 
     account-level, submission to Congress and the new outlays 
     resulting from that budget authority.
       (c) Disaster Relief.--In the House, if any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report makes 
     appropriations for discretionary amounts and such amounts are 
     designated for disaster relief pursuant to this subsection, 
     then the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations, and 
     as necessary, the aggregates in this resolution, shall be 
     adjusted by the amount of new budget authority and outlays up 
     to the amounts provided under section 251(b)(2)(D) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     adjusted by subsection (d).
       (d) Wildfire Suppression Operations.--
       (1) Cap adjustment.--In the House, if any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report making 
     appropriations for wildfire suppression operations for fiscal 
     year 2015 that appropriates a base amount equal to 70 percent 
     of the average cost of wildfire suppression operations over 
     the previous 10 years and provides an additional 
     appropriation of up to but not to exceed $1.4 billion for 
     wildfire suppression operations and such amounts are so 
     designated pursuant to this paragraph, then the allocation to 
     the House Committee on Appropriations may be adjusted by the 
     additional amount of budget authority above the base amount 
     and the outlays resulting from that additional budget 
     authority.
       (2) Deficit-neutral adjustment.--The total allowable 
     discretionary adjustment for disaster relief pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall be reduced by an amount 
     equivalent to the sum of allocation increases made pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) in the previous year.
       (e) Procedure for Adjustments.--In the House, prior to 
     consideration of any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report, the chairman of the House Committee on the 
     Budget shall make the adjustments set forth in subsections 
     (b), (c), and (d) for the incremental new budget authority in 
     that measure and the outlays resulting from that budget 
     authority if that measure meets the requirements set forth in 
     this section.

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

       (a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section 
     302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and section

[[Page 6113]]

     4001 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the 
     joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference 
     report on any concurrent resolution on the budget shall 
     include in its allocation under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the House Committee on 
     Appropriations amounts for the discretionary administrative 
     expenses of the Social Security Administration and of the 
     Postal Service.
       (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying section 302(f) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of the 
     level of total new budget authority and total outlays 
     provided by a measure shall include any off-budget 
     discretionary amounts.

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

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

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

       In the House, and pursuant to section 301(b)(8) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for the remainder of the 
     113th Congress, the following shall apply in lieu of 
     ``CUTGO'' rules and principles:
       (1)(A) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), it 
     shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such 
     measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net 
     effect of increasing the on-budget deficit or reducing the 
     on-budget surplus for the period comprising either--
       (i) the current year, the budget year, and the four years 
     following that budget year; or
       (ii) the current year, the budget year, and the nine years 
     following that budget year.
       (B) The effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus 
     shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (C) For the purpose of this section, the terms ``budget 
     year'', ``current year'', and ``direct spending'' have the 
     meanings specified in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that the term 
     ``direct spending'' shall also include provisions in 
     appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to 
     substantive law as described in section 3(4) (C) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
       (2) If a bill, joint resolution, or amendment is considered 
     pursuant to a special order of the House directing the Clerk 
     to add as a new matter at the end of such measure the 
     provisions of a separate measure as passed by the House, the 
     provisions of such separate measure as passed by the House 
     shall be included in the evaluation under paragraph (1) of 
     the bill, joint resolution, or amendment.
       (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     evaluation under paragraph (1) shall exclude a provision 
     expressly designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-
     you-go principles in the case of a point of order under this 
     clause against consideration of--
       (i) a bill or joint resolution;
       (ii) an amendment made in order as original text by a 
     special order of business;
       (iii) a conference report; or
       (iv) an amendment between the Houses.
       (B) In the case of an amendment (other than one specified 
     in subparagraph (A)) to a bill or joint resolution, the 
     evaluation under paragraph (1) shall give no cognizance to 
     any designation of emergency.
       (C) If a bill, a joint resolution, an amendment made in 
     order as original text by a special order of business, a 
     conference report, or an amendment between the Houses 
     includes a provision expressly designated as an emergency for 
     purposes of pay-as-you-go principles, the Chair shall put the 
     question of consideration with respect thereto.

     SEC. 407. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

                            TITLE V--POLICY

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

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the economy entered a deep recession in December 2007 
     that was worsened by a financial crisis in 2008-by January 
     2009, the private sector was shedding about 800,000 jobs per 
     month;
       (2) actions by the President, Congress, and the Federal 
     Reserve helped stem the crisis, and job creation resumed in 
     2010, with the economy creating 8.9 million private jobs over 
     the past 49 consecutive months;
       (3) as part of a ``Make it in America'' agenda, United 
     States manufacturing has been leading the Nation's economic 
     recovery as domestic manufacturers regain their economic and 
     competitive edge and a wave of insourcing jobs from abroad 
     begins;
       (4) despite the job gains already made, job growth needs to 
     accelerate and continue for an extended period for the 
     economy to fully recover from the recession; and
       (5) job creation is vital to Nation building at home and to 
     deficit reduction--CBO has noted that if the country were at 
     full employment, the deficit would be about half its current 
     size.
       (b) Policy.--
       (1) In general.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
     Congress should pursue a ``Make it in America'' agenda with a 
     priority to consider and enact legislation to help create 
     jobs, remove incentives to out-source jobs overseas and 
     instead support incentives that bring jobs back to the United 
     States, and help middle class families by increasing the 
     minimum wage.
       (2) Jobs.--This resolution--
       (A) provides funding to support President Obama's four-
     year, $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization 
     proposal;
       (B) provides $1 billion for the President's proposal to 
     establish a Veterans Job Corps; and
       (C) establishes a reserve fund that would allow for passage 
     of additional job creation measures, including further 
     infrastructure improvements and support for biomedical 
     research that both creates jobs and advances scientific 
     knowledge and health, or other spending or revenue proposals.

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

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Supporting the President's four-year, $302 billion 
     surface transportation reauthorization proposal will sharpen 
     America's global competitive edge in the 21st century by 
     allowing infrastructure expansion and modernization.
       (2) Many of our roads, bridges, and transit systems are in 
     disrepair, and fail to move as many goods and people as the 
     economy demands. The American Society of Engineers gives the 
     United States infrastructure an overall grade of D+.
       (3) Deep cuts to our transportation funding over the next 
     10 years will hurt families and businesses at a time when we 
     have major infrastructure needs and workers ready to do the 
     job.
       (4) Increasing transportation investments improves our 
     quality of life by building new ladders of opportunity--
     improving our competitive edge, facilitating American 
     exports, creating new jobs and increasing access to existing 
     ones, and fostering economic growth, while also providing 
     critical safety improvements and reduced commute times.
       (5) The highway trust fund provides critical funding for 
     repairing, expanding, and modernizing roads, bridges, and 
     transit systems, and according to recent CBO projections, it 
     is expected to become insolvent this summer. This could force 
     a halt to construction projects, which would put 700,000 jobs 
     at risk.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House to provide 
     funding in support of the President's proposed four-year, 
     $302 billion surface transportation reauthorization that 
     prevents the imminent insolvency of the highway trust fund 
     and increases investment in our highway and transit programs. 
     Such an investment sharpens our competitive edge, increases 
     access to jobs, reduces commute times, makes our highways and 
     transit systems safer, facilitates American exports, creates 
     jobs, and fosters economic growth.

     SEC. 503. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAX REFORM AND FAIRNESS FOR 
                   MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) According to the United States Census Bureau, American 
     families lost ground during the 2000s as median income 
     slipped 4.9 percent in real terms between 2000 and 2009.
       (2) According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 
     1979 and 2007, real after-tax incomes for the top 1 percent 
     of income earners grew 278 percent--or a stunning $973,100--
     per household. In contrast, real after-tax incomes of the 
     middle 20 percent of families grew just 25 percent, and 
     incomes of the poorest 20 percent increased by 16 percent.
       (3) Past Republican tax plans have made reducing taxes for 
     the wealthiest Americans the top priority. The result has 
     been legislation that increased deficits while giving a 
     disproportionate share of any tax cuts to the wealthy.
       (4) Recent Republican tax plans, including this year's 
     House Republican Budget, have emphasized reducing the top 
     marginal rates

[[Page 6114]]

     to 25 percent. Analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center 
     has shown that it is impossible to achieve such a reduction 
     and be revenue-neutral without large reductions in tax 
     deductions and credits for middle-income taxpayers that would 
     lead to a net tax increase on those families.
       (5) Analyses of proposals to reduce top rates to 25 percent 
     within a revenue-neutral tax reform plan indicate that the 
     plans would raise taxes on middle-class families with 
     children by an average of at least $2,000.
       (6) Such a tax increase would--
       (A) make it even harder for working families to make ends 
     meet;
       (B) cost the economy millions of jobs over the coming years 
     by reducing consumer spending, which will greatly weaken 
     economic growth; and
       (C) further widen the income gap between the wealthiest 
     households and the middle class by making the tax code more 
     regressive.
       (7) The tax code contains numerous, wasteful tax breaks for 
     special interests.
       (8) these special tax breaks can greatly complicate the 
     effort to administer the code and the taxpayer's ability to 
     fully comply with its terms, while also undermining our basic 
     sense of fairness.
       (9) they can distort economic incentives for businesses and 
     consumers and encourage businesses to ship American jobs and 
     capital overseas for tax purposes; in many cases, the 
     revenues lost to various tax expenditures can be put to 
     better use for more targeted initiatives.
       (b) Policy.--
       (1) This resolution would accommodate action to simplify 
     the tax code and eliminate special interest tax breaks 
     without increasing the tax burden on middle-class taxpayers.

     SEC. 504. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) the minimum wage has not been increased since 2009;
       (2) the real value of the minimum wage today is less than 
     it was in 1956;
       (3) increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would 
     give a raise to about 28,000,000 workers;
       (4) increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would 
     lift about 1,000,000 Americans out of poverty;
       (5) minimum wage workers bring home an average of 50 
     percent of their family's total income;
       (6) a higher minimum wage would put more money in the 
     pockets of individuals who are likely to spend additional 
     income, which would help expand the economy and create jobs;
       (7) in part because of this effect, recent studies have 
     indicated that increases in the minimum wage do not adversely 
     impact job creation as much as had been previously thought, 
     and that modest increases in the minimum wage may actually 
     create jobs;
       (8) the higher minimum wage is important to victims of wage 
     discrimination, who are more likely to find themselves in 
     low-paying jobs;
       (9) a higher minimum wage will reduce government spending 
     to provide assistance to minimum wage workers; and
       (10) a higher minimum wage will benefit businesses by 
     increasing productivity, reducing absenteeism, and reducing 
     turnover.
       (b) Policy.--This resolution assumes action by the House of 
     Representatives to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour 
     in three annual steps, as proposed in H.R. 1010, the Fair 
     Minimum Wage Act of 2013.

     SEC. 505. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON IMMIGRATION REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Fixing the country's broken immigration system will 
     mean a stronger economy and lower budget deficits.
       (2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 
     enacting H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, 
     and Immigration Modernization Act, will reduce the deficit by 
     $900 billion over the next two decades, boost the economy by 
     5.4 percent, and increase productivity by 1.0 percent.
       (3) The Social Security Actuary estimates that immigration 
     reform will add up to $300 billion to the Social Security 
     Trust Fund over the next decade and will extend Social 
     Security solvency by up to two years.
       (4) The passage of H.R. 15 recognizes that the primary 
     tenets of its success depend on securing the sovereignty of 
     the United States of America and establishing a coherent and 
     just system for integrating those who seek to join American 
     society.
       (5) We have a right, and duty, to maintain and secure our 
     borders, and to keep our country safe and prosperous. As a 
     Nation founded, built and sustained by immigrants we also 
     have a responsibility to harness the power of that tradition 
     in a balanced way that secures a more prosperous future for 
     America.
       (6) We have always welcomed newcomers to the United States 
     and will continue to do so. But in order to qualify for the 
     honor and privilege of eventual citizenship, our laws must be 
     followed. The world depends on America to be strong--
     economically, militarily and ethically. The establishment of 
     a stable, just, and efficient immigration system only 
     supports those goals. As a Nation, we have the right and 
     responsibility to make our borders safe, to establish clear 
     and just rules for seeking citizenship, to control the flow 
     of legal immigration, and to eliminate illegal immigration, 
     which in some cases has become a threat to our national 
     security.
       (7) All parts of H.R. 15 are premised on the right and need 
     of the United States to achieve these goals, and to protect 
     its borders and maintain its sovereignty.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the full 
     House vote on comprehensive immigration reform--such as H.R. 
     15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and 
     Immigration Modernization Act--to boost our economy, lower 
     deficits, establish clear and just rules for citizenship, and 
     secure our borders.

     SEC. 506. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Since the expiration of emergency unemployment 
     compensation at the end of 2013, over 2,000,000 workers and 
     their families have lost benefits. Thousands more are losing 
     benefits each week.
       (2) The long-term unemployment rate at the time of the 
     expiration, and still today, was nearly twice as high as it 
     was at the expiration of any previous extended unemployment 
     benefits program.
       (3) Extending unemployment is good for the affected workers 
     and their families, and the economy as a whole. The CBO has 
     estimated that extending emergency unemployment compensation 
     will create 200,000 jobs by the end of the year.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
     emergency unemployment compensation be extended for 1 year, 
     retroactive to its expiration. The resolution assumes this 
     would be accomplished in two steps with passage of the 
     bipartisan Senate bill adding 5 months and future legislation 
     completing the task. Over the full year, this will benefit 
     5,000,000 Americans and their families as well as their 
     communities and the Nation as a whole.

     SEC. 507. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE EARNED INCOME TAX 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has long been 
     considered one of our most effective anti-poverty programs. 
     It has generally enjoyed strong, bipartisan support from 
     Members of Congress and Presidents of each party.
       (2) The EITC rewards work. Benefits are only available to 
     taxpayers with earned income. Encouraging workforce 
     participation among low earners is generally thought to 
     benefit the workers, their families, the community and the 
     overall economy.
       (3) Many of our income security programs target their 
     benefits towards children. The EITC is no different; the 
     credit for childless workers is significantly less generous. 
     As a result, low-income childless workers often receive 
     little support from our anti-poverty efforts. Expanding the 
     EITC for childless workers would help close that gap and has 
     been supported by anti-poverty experts with varying 
     ideological perspectives, consistent with the Credit's 
     bipartisan history.
       (4) Expansion of the EITC can be viewed as a tax cut. There 
     is significant room to expand the EITC for childless workers 
     that would still leave those workers as net taxpayers, when 
     you include both the employee- and employer-paid portion of 
     their Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes.
       (5) A tax cut for these workers is appropriate as very low-
     income childless workers, because of the limited tax benefits 
     available to them, can, in some circumstances actually fall 
     below the poverty line as a result of their tax burden.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that the 
     House should pass legislation to expand the Earned Income Tax 
     Credit for childless workers. This expansion could take 
     several forms, including larger phase-in and phase-out rates, 
     higher thresholds for beginning the phase-out range, and 
     extension of the credit to older and younger adults.

     SEC. 508. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT: WHEN 
                   WOMEN SUCCEED, AMERICA SUCCEEDS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Wage inequality still exists in this country. Women 
     make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the 
     pay gap for African American women and Latinas is even 
     larger.
       (2) Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women, 
     and the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation over the 
     last 45 years.
       (3) More than 40 million private sector workers in this 
     country--including more than 13 million working women--are 
     not able to take a paid sick day when they are ill. Millions 
     more lack paid sick time to care for a sick child.
       (4) Nearly one-quarter of adults in the United States (23 
     percent) report that they have lost a job or have been 
     threatened with job loss for taking time off due to illness 
     or to care for a sick child or relative.
       (5) Fully 89 percent of the United States workforce does 
     not have paid family leave through their employers, and more 
     than 60 percent of the workforce does not have paid

[[Page 6115]]

     personal medical leave through an employer-provided temporary 
     disability program, which some new mothers use.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Congress 
     should make a positive difference in the lives of women, 
     enacting measures to address economic equality and women's 
     health and safety. To address economic fairness, Congress 
     should enact the Paycheck Fairness Act, increase the minimum 
     wage, support women entrepreneurs and small businesses, and 
     support work and family balance through earned paid sick 
     leave, and earned paid and expanded family and medical leave. 
     To address health and safety concerns, Congress should 
     increase funding for the prevention and treatment of women's 
     health issues such as breast cancer and heart disease, 
     support access to family planning, and enact measures to 
     prevent and protect women from domestic violence.

     SEC. 509. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON A NATIONAL STRATEGY TO 
                   ERADICATE POVERTY AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Access to opportunity should be the right of every 
     American.
       (2) Poverty has declined by more than one-third since 1967. 
     More than 40,000,000 Americans are not in poverty today 
     because of programs and tax policies that strengthen economic 
     security and increase opportunity. Continued Federal support 
     is essential to build on these gains.
       (3) Antipoverty programs have increasingly been focused on 
     encouraging and rewarding work for those who are able. The 
     programs can empower their beneficiaries to rise to the 
     middle class through job training, educational assistance, 
     adequate nutrition, housing and health care.
       (4) Social Security has played a major role in reducing 
     poverty. Without it, the poverty rate in 2012 would have been 
     8.5 percentage points higher. Its positive impact on older 
     Americans is even starker, lowering the poverty rate among 
     this group by 40 percentage points.
       (5) Unemployment insurance benefits provide critical 
     support to millions of workers, who lost their jobs through 
     no fault of their own, and their families. Without these 
     benefits, 2,500,000 more people would have lived in poverty 
     in 2012.
       (6) The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program alone 
     lifts nearly 5,000,000 people out of poverty, including over 
     2,000,000 children. It is particularly effective in keeping 
     children--over 1,000,000--out of deep poverty (below half the 
     poverty line). School breakfast and lunch programs help keep 
     children ready to learn, allowing them to reach their full 
     potential.
       (7) Medicaid improves health, access to health care and 
     financial security. Medicaid coverage lowers infant, child, 
     and adult mortality rates. Medicaid coverage virtually 
     eliminates catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures, 
     providing much needed financial security and peace of mind.
       (8) The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax 
     Credit (CTC) together lift over 9,000,000 people, including 
     5,000,000 children, out of poverty. President Ronald Reagan 
     proposed the major EITC expansion in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, 
     which he referred to as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-
     family, the best job creation measure to come out of 
     Congress''. Studies indicate that children in families that 
     receive the type of income supports EITC and CTC offer do 
     better at school and have higher incomes as adults.
       (9) Despite our progress, there is still work to be done. 
     Nearly 50,000,000 Americans still live below the poverty 
     line. Parental income still has a major impact on children's 
     income after they become adults.
       (10) The minimum wage has not changed since 2007 and is 
     worth less today than it was in real terms at the beginning 
     of 1950. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that an 
     incremental increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour 
     would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.
       (11) In addition, some areas of the country have been left 
     behind. They face persistent high levels of poverty and 
     joblessness. Residents of these areas often lack access to 
     quality schools, affordable health care, and adequate job 
     opportunities.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House to support a 
     goal of developing a national strategy to eliminate poverty, 
     with the initial goal of cutting poverty in half in ten 
     years, and to extend equitable access to economic opportunity 
     to all Americans. The strategy must include a multi-pronged 
     approach that would--
       (1) ensure a livable wage for workers, including raising 
     the minimum wage so that a full time worker earns enough to 
     be above the poverty line;
       (2) provide education and job training to make sure workers 
     have the skills to succeed;
       (3) provide supports for struggling families in difficult 
     economic times and while developing skills;
       (4) remove barriers and obstacles that prevent individuals 
     from taking advantage of economic and educational 
     opportunities; and
       (5) provide supports for the most vulnerable who are not 
     able to work: seniors, the severely disabled, and children.
     As the strategy is developed and implemented, Congress must 
     work to protect low-income and middle-class Americans from 
     the negative impacts of budget cuts on the critical domestic 
     programs that help millions of struggling American families. 
     The strategy should maximize the impact of antipoverty 
     programs across Federal, State, and local governments. 
     Improving the effective coordination and oversight across 
     agencies and implementing a true unity of programs under a 
     ``whole of government'' approach to shared goals and client-
     based outcomes will help to streamline access, improve 
     service delivery, and strengthen and extend the reach of 
     every Federal dollar to fight poverty. The plan should 
     consider additional targeting of spending toward persistent 
     poverty areas to revitalize these areas of pervasive 
     historical poverty, unemployment, and general distress.

     SEC. 510. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM THAT 
                   PROTECTS WORKERS AND RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) Social Security is America's most important retirement 
     resource, especially for seniors, because it provides an 
     income floor to keep them, their spouses and their survivors 
     out of poverty during retirement--benefits earned based on 
     their past payroll contributions;
       (2) in January 2013, 58,000,000 people relied on Social 
     Security;
       (3) 9 out of 10 individuals 65 and older received Social 
     Security benefits;
       (4) Social Security helps keep people out of poverty and 
     has lowered the poverty rate among seniors by nearly 40 
     percentage points;
       (5) Social Security benefits are modest, with an average 
     annual benefit for retirees of about $15,000, which is the 
     majority of total retirement income for more than half of all 
     beneficiaries;
       (6) diverting workers' payroll contributions toward private 
     accounts undermines retirement security and the social safety 
     net by subjecting the workers' retirement decisions and 
     income to the whims of the stock market;
       (7) diverting trust fund payroll contributions toward 
     private accounts jeopardizes Social Security because the 
     program will not have the resources to pay full benefits to 
     current retirees; and
       (8) privatization increases Federal debt because the 
     Treasury will have to borrow additional funds from the public 
     to pay full benefits to current retirees.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Social 
     Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to 
     achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals 
     are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement 
     security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform 
     legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of 
     the program.

     SEC. 511. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON PROTECTING THE MEDICARE 
                   GUARANTEE FOR SENIORS.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) senior citizens and persons with disabilities highly 
     value the Medicare program and rely on Medicare to guarantee 
     their health and financial security;
       (2) in 2013, 52,000,000 people relied on Medicare for 
     coverage of hospital stays, physician visits, prescription 
     drugs, and other necessary medical goods and services;
       (3) the Medicare program has lower administrative costs 
     than private insurance, and Medicare program costs per 
     enrollee have grown at a slower rate than private insurance 
     for a given level of benefits;
       (4) people with Medicare already have the ability to choose 
     a private insurance plan within Medicare through the Medicare 
     Advantage option, yet 72 percent of Medicare beneficiaries 
     chose the traditional fee-for-service program instead of a 
     private plan in 2013;
       (5) rising health care costs are not unique to Medicare or 
     other Federal health programs, they are endemic to the entire 
     health care system;
       (6) converting Medicare into a voucher for the purchase of 
     health insurance will merely force seniors and individuals 
     with disabilities to pay much higher premiums if they want to 
     use their voucher to purchase traditional Medicare coverage;
       (7) a voucher system in which the voucher payment fails to 
     keep pace with growth in health costs would expose seniors 
     and persons with disabilities on fixed incomes to 
     unacceptable financial risks;
       (8) shifting more health care costs onto Medicare 
     beneficiaries would not reduce overall health care costs, 
     instead it would mean beneficiaries would face higher 
     premiums, eroding coverage, or both; and
       (9) versions of voucher policies that do not immediately 
     end the traditional Medicare program will merely set it up 
     for a death spiral as private plans siphon off healthier and 
     less expensive beneficiaries, leaving the sickest 
     beneficiaries in a program that will wither away.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the 
     Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities 
     should be preserved and strengthened, and that any 
     legislation to end the Medicare guarantee, financially 
     penalize people for choosing traditional Medicare, or shift 
     rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare 
     with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of health 
     insurance, should be rejected.

[[Page 6116]]



     SEC. 512. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE 
                   COVERAGE FOR WORKING FAMILIES.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) making health care coverage affordable and accessible 
     for all American families will improve families' health and 
     economic security, which will make the economy stronger;
       (2) the Affordable Care Act will expand affordable coverage 
     to 25,000,000 people by the end of the decade, and already, 
     millions of Americans have health insurance under this law--
     more than 7,000,000 individuals have signed up for private 
     health insurance through new health insurance Marketplaces, 
     3,000,000 young adults have been able to stay on their 
     parent's health insurance plan, and 3,000,000 people have new 
     Medicaid coverage;
       (3) the Affordable Care Act ensures the right to equal 
     treatment for people who have preexisting health conditions 
     and for women;
       (4) the Affordable Care Act ensures that health insurance 
     coverage will always include basic necessary services such as 
     prescription drugs, mental health care, and maternity care 
     and that insurance companies cannot impose lifetime or annual 
     limits on these benefits;
       (5) the Affordable Care Act increases transparency in 
     health care, helping to reduce health care cost growth by 
     requiring transparency around hospital charges, insurer cost-
     sharing, and kick-back payments from pharmaceutical companies 
     to physicians;
       (6) the Affordable Care Act reforms Federal health 
     entitlements by using nearly every health cost-containment 
     provision experts recommend, including new incentives to 
     reward quality and coordination of care rather than simply 
     quantity of services provided, new tools to crack down on 
     fraud, and the elimination of excessive taxpayer subsidies to 
     private insurance plans, and as a result will slow the 
     projected annual growth rate of national health expenditures 
     by 0.3 percentage points after 2016, the essence of ``bending 
     the cost curve''; and
       (7) the Affordable Care Act will reduce the Federal deficit 
     by more than $1,000,000,000,000 over the next 20 years.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the law of 
     the land should support making affordable health care 
     coverage available to every American family, and therefore 
     the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed.

     SEC. 513. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON MEDICAID.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) Medicaid is a central component of the Nation's health 
     care safety net, providing health coverage to 60,000,000 
     Americans, including 1 in 3 children;
       (2) Medicaid improves health outcomes, access to health 
     services, and financial security;
       (3) senior citizens and people with disabilities account 
     for two-thirds of Medicaid program spending and consequently 
     would be at particular risk of losing access to important 
     health care assistance under any policy to sever the link 
     between Medicaid funding and the actual costs of providing 
     services to the currently eligible Medicaid population;
       (4) Medicaid is the primary payer for long-term care 
     services in the United States, providing a critical health 
     care safety net for senior citizens and people with 
     disabilities facing significant costs for long-term care; and
       (5) at least 70 percent of people over age 65 will likely 
     need long-term care services at some point in their lives.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that the 
     important health care safety net for children, senior 
     citizens, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable 
     Americans provided by Medicaid should be preserved and should 
     not be dismantled by converting Medicaid into a block grant, 
     per capita cap, or other financing arrangement that would 
     limit Federal contributions and render the program incapable 
     of responding to increased need that may result from trends 
     in demographics or health care costs or from economic 
     conditions.

     SEC. 514. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds that--
       (1) we must continue to support a strong military that is 
     second to none and the size and the structure of our military 
     have to be driven by a strategy;
       (2) those who serve in uniform are our most important 
     security resource and the Administration and Congress shall 
     continue to provide the support they need to successfully 
     carry out the missions the country gives them;
       (3) a growing economy is the foundation of our security and 
     enables the country to provide the resources for a strong 
     military, sound homeland security agencies, and effective 
     diplomacy and international development;
       (4) the Nation's projected long-term debt could have 
     serious consequences for our economy and security, and that 
     more efficient military spending has to be part of an overall 
     plan that effectively deals with this problem;
       (5) the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal 
     Responsibility and Reform and the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici 
     Debt Reduction Task Force concluded that a serious and 
     balanced deficit reduction plan must put national security 
     programs on the table;
       (6) former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral 
     Mike Mullen argued that the permissive budget environment 
     over the last decade, a period when defense spending 
     increased by hundreds of billions of dollars, had allowed the 
     Pentagon to avoid prioritizing;
       (7) reining in wasteful spending at the Nation's security 
     agencies, including the Department of Defense--the last 
     department still unable to pass an audit--such as the 
     elimination of duplicative programs that have been identified 
     by the Government Accountability Office needs to continue as 
     a priority;
       (8) effective implementation of weapons acquisition reforms 
     at the Department of Defense can help control excessive cost 
     growth in the development of new weapons systems and help 
     ensure that weapons systems are delivered on time and in 
     adequate quantities to equip our servicemen and servicewomen;
       (9) the Department of Defense should continue to review 
     defense plans and requirements to ensure that weapons 
     developed to counter Cold War-era threats are not redundant 
     and are applicable to 21st century threats, which should 
     include, with the participation of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration, examination of requirements for the 
     nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons delivery systems, 
     and nuclear weapons and infrastructure modernization;
       (10) weapons technologies should be proven to work through 
     adequate testing before advancing them to the production 
     phase of the acquisition process;
       (11) the Pentagon's operation and maintenance budget has 
     grown for decades between 2.5 percent and 3.0 percent above 
     inflation each year on a per service member basis, and it is 
     imperative that unsustainable cost growth be controlled in 
     this area;
       (12) nearly all of the increase in the Federal civilian 
     workforce from 2001 to 2013 is due to increases at security-
     related agencies--Department of Defense, Department of 
     Homeland Security, Department of Veterans Affairs, and 
     Department of Justice--and the increase, in part, represents 
     a transition to ensure civil servants, as opposed to private 
     contractors, are performing inherently governmental work and 
     an increase to a long-depleted acquisition and auditing 
     workforce at the Pentagon to ensure effective management of 
     weapons systems programs, to eliminate the use of contractors 
     to oversee other contractors, and to prevent waste, fraud, 
     and abuse;
       (13) proposals to implement an indiscriminate 10 percent 
     across-the-board cut to the Federal civilian workforce would 
     adversely affect security agencies, leaving them unable to 
     manage their total workforce, which includes contractors, and 
     their operations in a cost-effective manner; and
       (14) cooperative threat reduction and other 
     nonproliferation programs (securing ``loose nukes'' and other 
     materials used in weapons of mass destruction), which were 
     highlighted as high priorities by the 9/11 Commission, need 
     to be funded at a level that is commensurate with the 
     evolving threat.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that--
       (1) the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 
     2011 for fiscal years 2016 through 2021 should be rescinded 
     and replaced by a deficit reduction plan that is balanced, 
     that makes smart spending cuts, that requires everyone to pay 
     their fair share, and that takes into account a comprehensive 
     national security strategy that includes careful 
     consideration of international, defense, homeland security, 
     and law enforcement programs; and
       (2) savings can be achieved from the national defense 
     budget without compromising our security through greater 
     emphasis on eliminating duplicative and wasteful programs, 
     reforming the acquisition process, identifying and 
     constraining unsustainable operating costs, and through 
     careful analysis of our national security needs.

     SEC. 515. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) The United States Government Accountability Office 
     described climate change as, ``a complex, crosscutting issue 
     that poses risks to many environmental and economic systems--
     including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human 
     health--and presents a significant financial risk to the 
     Federal Government''.
       (2) The United States Academy of Sciences and the British 
     Royal Society reported, ``It is now more certain than ever, 
     based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing 
     Earth's climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, 
     accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea 
     ice, and other climate-related changes''.
       (3) The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
     Change concluded the effects of climate change are occurring 
     worldwide, ``Observed impacts of climate change have already 
     affected agriculture, human health, ecosystems on land and in 
     the oceans, water supplies, and some people's livelihoods''.
       (4) The United States National Research Council's National 
     Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee found 
     climate change affects, ``human health, water supply, 
     agriculture, transportation, energy, and many other aspects 
     of society''.

[[Page 6117]]

       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that climate 
     change presents a significant financial risk to the Federal 
     Government. The scientific community has reached a consensus 
     regarding climate change science, which provides critical 
     information to preserve economic and environmental systems 
     throughout the world.

     SEC. 516. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON INVESTMENTS IN EARLY 
                   CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Investments in early education are among the best 
     investments we can make for children, families, and the 
     economy.
       (2) Investments in early childhood benefit the economy as a 
     whole, generating at least $7 in return for every $1 invested 
     by lowering the need for spending on other services--such as 
     remedial education, grade repetition, and special education--
     and increasing productivity and earnings for those children 
     as adults.
       (3) Children who receive high-quality early education 
     benefit directly in both the short term and the long term. 
     They have better educational outcomes, stronger job earnings, 
     and lower crime and delinquency rates.
       (4) Unfortunately, only 3 out of every 10 4-year-olds are 
     enrolled in high-quality early childhood education programs 
     in the United States. This low level of participation ranks 
     the United States 28th out of 38 countries in the 
     Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development for the 
     share of 4-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education.
       (5) In particular, children from low-income families are 
     less likely to have access to high-quality, affordable 
     preschool programs that will prepare them for kindergarten. 
     By third grade, children from low-income families who are not 
     reading at grade level are six times less likely to graduate 
     from high school than students who are proficient.
       (b) Policy.--This resolution provides for enactment of a 
     $76 billion, 10-year investment to provide access to high-
     quality early education for all 4-year-olds. Early education 
     programs must meet quality benchmarks that are linked to 
     better outcomes for children, including a rigorous curriculum 
     tied to State-level standards, qualified teachers, small 
     class sizes, and effective evaluation and review of programs.

     SEC. 517. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON TAKING A BALANCED APPROACH 
                   TO DEFICIT REDUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
       (1) Since 2010, the Congress has enacted several major 
     measures to reduce the deficit. Most of the savings come from 
     cuts to spending. Revenues represent less than one-quarter of 
     total savings achieved.
       (2) Allowing implementation of the remaining spending 
     sequester will damage our national security, critical 
     infrastructure, and other important investments.
       (3) Every bipartisan commission has recommended, and the 
     majority of Americans agree, that we should take a balanced, 
     bipartisan approach to reducing the deficit that addresses 
     both revenue and spending.
       (b) Policy.--It is the policy of the House that Congress 
     should develop a balanced plan to address the Nation's long-
     term fiscal imbalance. The plan should--
       (1) prevent job loss and economic drag in the near term as 
     the economy heals;
       (2) increase revenues without increasing the tax burden on 
     middle-income Americans; and
       (3) decrease spending through greater efficiencies within 
     the Government and improving incentives for service providers 
     while maintaining the Medicare guarantee, protecting Social 
     Security and a strong social safety net, and making strategic 
     investments in education, science, research, and critical 
     infrastructure necessary to compete in the global economy.

     SEC. 518. 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) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion each 
     year for information technology. GAO has identified 
     opportunities for savings and improved efficiencies in the 
     Government's information technology infrastructure.
       (4) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108 billion in 
     improper payments in fiscal year 2012.
       (5) Under clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, each standing committee must hold at least 
     one hearing during each 120 day period following its 
     establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in 
     Government programs.
       (6) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by fiscal 
     year 2015, 32 laws will expire. Timely reauthorizations of 
     these laws would ensure assessments of program justification 
     and effectiveness.
       (7) The findings resulting from congressional oversight of 
     Federal Government programs may result in programmatic 
     changes in both authorizing statutes and program funding 
     levels.
       (b) Policy Statement on Deficit Reduction Through the 
     Reduction of Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each 
     authorizing committee annually shall include in its Views and 
     Estimates letter required under section 301(d) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 recommendations to the 
     Committee on the Budget of programs within the jurisdiction 
     of such committee whose funding should be changed.

     SEC. 519. POLICY OF THE HOUSE ON THE USE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS.

       It is the policy of this resolution that the House should 
     lead by example and identify any savings that can be achieved 
     through greater productivity and efficiency gains in the 
     operation and maintenance of House services and resources 
     like printing, conferences, utilities, telecommunications, 
     furniture, grounds maintenance, postage, and rent. This 
     should include a review of policies and procedures for 
     acquisition of goods and services to eliminate any 
     unnecessary spending. The Committee on House Administration 
     shall review the policies pertaining to the services provided 
     to Members of Congress and House Committees, and shall 
     identify ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the operation 
     of the House gym, Barbershop, Salon, and the House dining 
     room. Further, it is the policy of this resolution that no 
     taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first class airfare or 
     to lease corporate jets for Members of Congress.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 544, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects the priorities 
and values of the country. This amendment focuses on growing jobs now, 
making sure that we have a strong economy and making sure we 
significantly reduce our deficit and debt as a share of our economy 
over the longer term and does it in a balanced way. It does it by, for 
example, closing some of the special interest tax breaks that actually 
perversely encourage American corporations to ship American jobs 
overseas. We believe we should be in the business of shipping American 
products overseas, and this budget does invest in jobs right here at 
home.
  Unlike the House Republican budget, we don't allow the transportation 
trust fund to go insolvent later this summer. Unlike the House Republic 
budget, we do not make deep cuts in our kids' education. We think it is 
important to build that ladder of opportunity. Unlike the Republican 
budget, we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and require 
seniors to pay more if they have high prescription drug costs, and we 
don't shred the social safety net.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to also bring to the attention of the body 
something else that is in here. We advance fund, 100 percent, the 
Veterans Administration, because what we saw during the unnecessary and 
unproductive government shutdown last fall was that the closure began 
to put at risk the benefits that were being paid to our veterans. Now, 
we already provide for the advance funding of those health care 
benefits, but what we don't fund in advance are the people who have to 
administer them to make sure that they are delivered to our veterans on 
time.
  So we are very pleased to have a letter here from the DAV and other 
veterans' groups that strongly support this provision in our budget. It 
is something that they have been requesting. I just want to read one of 
the paragraphs:

       We would like to commend you for presenting an alternate 
     budget proposal that contains a provision for advance 
     appropriations to all VA discretionary programs and services, 
     a critically needed reform that is universally supported by 
     veterans' organizations and is DAV's number one priority.

  So whether it is veterans, whether it is our kids' education, or 
whether it is making our commitment to our seniors, we choose to make 
sure that we fund the priorities of the country and we don't keep off-
limits tax preferences for the powerful and the privileged.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page 6118]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Terry). The gentleman is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), a distinguished member of 
the Budget Committee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Ryan.
  As a businessowner of 42 years, I know what it means to meet the 
bottom line and live within my means, both in my business and in my 
family. Unfortunately, America hasn't lived within its means for years, 
and we are nearing the tipping point. But President Obama and the 
Democrats in Congress want to push us nearer to the edge rather than 
rein us back in by spending money we just don't have and growing 
government with massive, government-run programs like ObamaCare.
  The government already takes enough money from the hands of 
hardworking Americans--and that is not the problem. The problem is 
spending. Mr. Van Hollen's plan does nothing to address the real 
problem. It makes it worse. We need a budget that shrinks the size of 
government, reins in out-of-control spending, and prevents tax dollars 
from being subject to waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The Van Hollen plan raises taxes by $1.8 trillion, and when compared 
to the Republican budget authored by Chairman Ryan, it spends nearly $6 
trillion more, adds more than $4 trillion to the national debt, and it 
never, never balances. The budget is a disaster that doesn't reflect 
the direction this Nation needs to go, nor does it reflect what the 
American people want or need.
  We need a responsible plan. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this substitute.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right that we do close 
some special interest tax breaks, but we also have about $400 billion 
in revenue from pro-growth immigration reform which is in this budget, 
which at least some of our colleagues on the Republican side recognize 
as a good thing.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has told us that one thing 
we could do right now to get the economy moving faster would be to pass 
comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. In fact, they say it will 
help reduce the deficit by close to $1 trillion over the next 20 years 
and generate some economic activity. So $400 billion in that revenue is 
from more economic activity, the kind of pro-growth activity we thought 
our Republican colleagues liked.
  I am now very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, 
who has been focused on trying to make sure everybody in America gets a 
fair shake.

                              {time}  1030

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking member 
for yielding and for your tireless leadership of our committee. I rise 
in very strong support of the Democratic alternative to the disastrous 
Republican budget. Our Democratic alternative closes tax loopholes and 
makes smart investments in policies and programs that create jobs, cuts 
poverty and grows the economy for all.
  The Democratic alternative raises the minimum wage to $10.10 which 
lifts nearly 1 million Americans out of poverty. It also expands the 
earned income tax credit, and for the millions of Americans still 
struggling to find a job, it extends the lifeline of unemployment 
compensation which House Republicans have refused to consider. Nearly 3 
million people are living on the edge because Republicans refuse to 
extend emergency unemployment compensation.
  Our alternative protects Medicare, eliminates the sequester, and 
includes, as our ranking member said, comprehensive immigration reform 
which lowers our deficit by $900 billion.
  Finally, I appreciate some of my Republican colleagues have shown an 
interest in cutting poverty in our country. However, we have starkly 
different opinions of how we achieve that goal.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlelady.
  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the ranking member.
  As I was saying, we must attack poverty, not the poor, as evidenced 
through the draconian cuts to the safety net in the Ryan budget. 
Gutting SNAP is not a path out of poverty.
  The American people deserve a fighting chance to enter the middle 
class. They deserve better than the Ryan budget. Let me tell you, the 
better budget for our country is the Democratic alternative, which 
provides pathways out of poverty, creates jobs, protects the safety 
net, and grows the economy for all.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is noteworthy that once 
again--once again--and this is the fourth budget cycle that I have been 
through, the fourth Democratic budget offered here, that never 
balances. It never balances. How do you ever, ever pay back money that 
you have already borrowed if you never have a surplus and never get to 
balance? I have said it before and I will say it again: if you borrow 
money from me and intend to pay it back, that is debt. If you borrow 
money from me and never intend to pay it back, that is theft. That is 
what the Democrats are offering here today, Mr. Chairman. They are 
encouraging us to borrow more and borrow more and borrow more and never 
lay out any plan whatsoever for paying that money back to the children 
and grandchildren from whom we are borrowing.
  The only plan that will be offered later today that does that is the 
Republican budget. I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on the Democratic 
plan, a ``no'' vote on continued generational theft, and a ``yes'' vote 
on the Republican plan.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I find this newfound ideology of having 
to hit a particular target at a particular time interesting since 3 
years ago the Republican budget balanced maybe around the year 2040. 
And this year, it doesn't balance if you also claim to be getting rid 
of the Affordable Care Act, because you have $2 trillion in revenue in 
savings in this Republican budget from the Affordable Care Act, the 
same Affordable Care Act you say you are getting rid of. You just can't 
have both things true at the same time.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), 
someone who knows a little bit about logic, a distinguished member of 
the Budget Committee.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a statement of a society's 
moral principles. The Democratic budget is an investment plan that 
creates a job for a marine who comes back from Afghanistan. It 
guarantees health security for a single mom and her asthmatic daughter. 
It expands the opportunity for a bright-eyed son of immigrant parents 
to go to college.
  On the other hand, the Ryan manifesto doesn't create a job for that 
marine. The Ryan budget fires 3 million Americans over the next 2 
years, and it protects tax breaks for companies shipping those jobs 
overseas. The Ryan budget repeals the Affordable Care Act, forcing that 
single mother and baby daughter back into the intolerable days when 
families could not afford health care.
  In summary, the Republican budget asks not what you can do for your 
country, but proclaims your country refuses to do a thing for you.
  The Democratic budget invests in our greatest resource, the American 
people, the key to our Nation's continued greatness in the years to 
come. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the vice 
chairman of the House Budget Committee.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of 
the committee for the great work he has done in bringing forward a 
positive, solutions-oriented budget.
  What we are hearing here is the same song, different verse. You would 
think

[[Page 6119]]

that they would get tired of singing this song because it is so out of 
key: spends more, taxes more, borrows more, adds $4.3 trillion to the 
debt and never, ever comes to balance. Ever.
  The American people watching this and reading their newspapers about 
what the plan is in Washington, what the budget is in Washington, they 
recognize that the Democrats' plan is never, ever to balance; not 
something they can do in their homes. People have to balance their 
budgets. Not something they can do in their businesses; people have to 
balance budgets. So we hope that at some point in the future our 
friends on the other side of the aisle recognize that fiscal 
responsibility has something to do with the American dream.
  When we don't balance as a Nation, when our Federal budget doesn't 
balance, when we continue to add $4.3 trillion more to the debt than 
the Republican budget, what that means is we are robbing from future 
generations. We are telling them you are going to have to pay this; we 
are not responsible enough to pay it. You get to pay it. How does that 
sound to the young person out there who, by the way, is graduating from 
college and can't find a job in their sphere of interest because of 
this faltering economy.
  So what is the alternative? That is the good news, Mr. Chairman. 
There are positive solutions that we are offering. That is the 
Republican budget we are going to have a vote on just this morning, a 
positive budget that actually balances the budget over a period of 10 
years. And it not only balances the budget, it gets us on a path to pay 
off the entire debt of the United States.
  Think about the wonderful dreams that can be realized by young people 
and others across this great land when we don't have any debt. Think of 
what happens when you finally pay off that car. What a great relief 
that is. When you are finally able to pay off your home, when you are 
finally able to pay off those debts, you remember, you wake the next 
morning and you feel freer and more excited. There is a greater 
opportunity to realize your dreams.
  Our budget recognizes that health care is indeed important, and that 
Medicare and Medicaid, not according to me or the Republican side but 
according to the actuaries in those programs, is going broke. Bankrupt. 
What does that mean? That means that seniors and individuals in the 
Medicaid program will no longer be able to receive the benefits, the 
services, the health care that we have promised them as a country. That 
is what that means. That is what this program does on the other side of 
the aisle. That is why in our budget we save and strengthen and secure 
Medicare and Medicaid. We do so by making certain that patients are in 
charge of health care, not the Federal Government. The Republican 
budget is the premier budget that is being offered today. I urge my 
colleagues to vote down the Democrat budget and vote for the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, look, our Republican colleagues are 
going to have to choose and tell the American people, either they claim 
to have a budget that balances in 10 years or they are going to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act. But right now because they get rid of the 
entire Affordable Care Act, including the revenues and savings, they 
don't come close to balancing. I keep hearing balance, and the reality 
is that it has all that revenue from the Affordable Care Act.
  The one thing we know is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office says the Republican budget will slow down the economy in the 
next couple years. Ours won't, in part because we make investments in 
our infrastructure.
  At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), who is focused on making sure that this country has the 
modern infrastructure it needs, the ranking member of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if this budget balances, it balances in an 
alternate reality, perhaps on Planet Reagan. But it does take a very 
dyspeptic view of investments because they prioritize tax cuts for 
billionaires over investments. They purport or pretend or actually will 
cut out all Federal investment in roads, bridges, highways, and 
transit. That is a $52 billion cut. That is a couple of million jobs, 
and a lot more crumbling bridges.
  We have something called the Land Water Conservation Fund. It is 
funded by taxes collected from offshore oil drilling. It is suppose to 
buy conservation lands. They will not allow a single acre of land to be 
purchased by the Federal Government, but they will still collect the 
tax from the oil industry.
  And what about the looming crisis in wildfires in the West? Well, 
they are closing their eyes and are pretending we are not going to have 
drastic wildfires across the West, and they put zero budget in there in 
anticipation of drastic wildfires.
  This is the most unbelievably unrealistic, and I would have to go 
almost to the word, and I can't attribute it to people's motivations, 
but hypocritical budget I have ever seen.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a fascinating debate that is 
taking place today, laying out truly the two versions and visions for 
America. My friends on the other side of the aisle have no interest in 
putting America on a pathway to sustainability. They advocate for $2 
trillion of more taxes, but more taxes and more spending in their 
proposal never leads us to a balanced budget. They lead us to a debt 
crisis.
  It is one thing to come into this House, into this Chamber, and tell 
the American people, ``I want to raise taxes; and with those tax 
increases which are going to kill jobs, at one point I will balance the 
budget.'' But they don't even do that. They tax and they spend, and 
spend and they tax, and they never balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this is Mr. Ryan's last budget that he has 
introduced. I have somewhat of a disagreement on this, and there is 
some good news and bad news in what the Democrats propose. The good 
news is that they actually pay for all of their spending. The bad news 
is the money they pay it with is still in the pockets of our 
hardworking middle class families. It is going to be an attack on 
middle class families if we are going to pay for an irresponsible 
budget and an irresponsible spending path. And in the end, they will 
have a lower standard of living. I think that is unacceptable. I think 
we should reject this budget and actually be responsible to the 
American people, sustainable for the American people, and truly get the 
job done for the next generation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget flies in the face 
of the reality of their own budget. It does nothing to deal with the 
very real, looming crisis of Social Security. They are afraid to 
inflict their Medicare solution on the seniors that vote today; 
instead, it will bite long after the people arguing for it will have 
moved on.
  It repeals the Affordable Care Act, but keeps the taxes and fees they 
railed against. But there is nothing sadder than yesterday's Ryan 
soliloquy on how America cannot afford to invest in its future.
  Well, we don't think having billionaire hedge fund managers pay the 
same tax rate as hardworking Americans would be a blow to prosperity. 
Our budget invests in America's future--in infrastructure, education, 
innovation--while the Republicans would sentence this rich, great 
country to perpetual decline. Mercifully, this won't happen. Their 
budget will not become law.
  Someday, America will invest in our future again, close tax 
loopholes, and work together to solve our problems. Our budget shows 
how.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. Chairman.
  We have had a good three days of debate here. I plan on saying more 
in a

[[Page 6120]]

few moments, but I find it really interesting, I don't see much of a 
defense of the budget that the gentleman is offering, and more of the 
continually what I would call discredited attacks against ours. Our 
budget increases spending on average by 3.5 percent over the next 10 
years instead of 5.2 percent.

                              {time}  1045

  We are proposing to spend $43 trillion over the next 10 years instead 
of the $48 trillion. This is draconian, awful, evil, terrible, hurting 
people.
  We have seen this movie so many times over and over again. All the 
other side is offering is just keep doing more of the same; the same 
economics that we have had for the same 5 years, just keep doing more 
of that.
  If taxing, borrowing, and spending was working, we would know by now. 
It is not.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 additional 
seconds.
  That is why we need a different direction. That is why we owe the 
country an alternative; one that actually grows the economy, one that 
balances the budget and pays off the debt, one that secures retirement 
not with empty promises but real reforms, one that goes after waste and 
cronyism, one that respects people and does not offer more and more and 
more and more control in Washington.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, what we know is old and stale and 
doesn't work is trickle down economics. The idea you just give the 
folks at the very top a little bit bigger tax break and somehow it is 
going to benefit everybody else didn't work and made the deficit go up.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of the Finance Committee.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  We do live in a great country. Thank God people before this Congress, 
before Mr. Ryan's budget, understood that investing in our Nation's 
infrastructure was critical to achieving that greatness.
  The budget being offered by the Democrats invests in America, we 
invest in infrastructure. The Ryan budget does not do that. In fact, we 
go back.
  Our country has never been made great. We have never built railroads, 
never built great dams, never built great things to make this country 
the wonderful place that it is based on cutting and slashing and 
redistributing money up toward the wealthiest.
  Vote against the Ryan budget. Vote for the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman I am now pleased to yield 45 seconds to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a terrific new member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I think we can agree at least on the rhetoric that the best thing we 
can do to balance our budget in the long-term is to grow the economy, 
but it is pretty clear we have a different vision as to how that will 
actually happen.
  We believe that a Tax Code that is fair, that equally distributes the 
obligation to all Americans, is one of the ways we get there. We don't 
believe that simply cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans and 
passing the obligation on to working people is the way to do it.
  We believe that we grow the economy by investing in infrastructure so 
that we can grow jobs and deliver products across the country and 
across the planet. We don't think we get there by cutting 
infrastructure and continuing to challenge our businesses.
  We believe we grow the economy by investing in the skills of our 
workforce so that they can become more productive, not by cutting those 
necessary programs.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  It has been a good debate on the floor of the House over the last 
couple of days.
  The question boils down to, what are our country's priorities, what 
are our country's values? We believe we should be focused right now on 
growing opportunity and growing jobs. That is what our budget does.
  The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the House Republican 
budget will actually slow down job growth and slow down economic 
activity over the next couple of years.
  We invest in our infrastructure to keep America going. Their budget 
actually has the transportation trust fund go insolvent later this 
year.
  We continue to build ladders of opportunity so more people can 
prosper in this country. The Republican budget protects tax breaks for 
folks at the very, very top; in fact, provides millionaires with a one-
third cut in their tax rate--they do that--but they cut our investment 
in early education, in K through 12. We actually increase, we increase 
our early investment education. We think our kids' future is the most 
important thing for the future growth of this country.
  We protect our commitments to seniors. We don't reopen the 
prescription drug doughnut hole, we do not end the Medicare guarantee, 
and yes, we significantly bring down the deficits and stabilize the 
debt-to-GDP ratio in the out years. We don't do it by playing games. We 
don't say we are going to get rid of the Affordable Care Act and then 
rely on all the revenue and all the savings from the Affordable Care 
Act to pretend to hit balance in the out years.
  As I said earlier, we make sure we learn from our mistakes. In the 
16-day shutdown, which was totally unproductive and totally unnecessary 
and all part of an effort to get rid of the entire Affordable Care Act, 
a lot of Americans got hurt, including our veterans who are on the 
edge. So we do in this budget what every veteran organization asked 
this Congress to do: we made sure we advance-fund those appropriations 
so that next time, God forbid, someone in this House thinks it is a 
good idea to shut down the government, at least those who served our 
country are not put at risk in terms of getting the medical and other 
support they need.
  So yes, we invest in our veterans, we invest in our kids' future, we 
maintain our commitments to seniors, and we do that by asking the most 
powerful and the most privileged special interests to contribute a 
little bit more as we grow our economy through commonsense bipartisan 
immigration reform.
  If you want an America that is going to grow and prosper as one 
country, where we respect our individual freedoms and liberty and 
entrepreneurship but also recognize that there are some things that 
history has taught us we do better by working together, which is what 
has made us a world economic power, then support the Democratic budget. 
If you want to continue to support and protect the special interests at 
the very top on some trickle down theory, that that will help everybody 
else, then vote for the Republican budget, because that is what they do 
at the expense of the rest of the country and at the expense of 
economic growth and prosperity for every American.
  Vote ``yes'' for jobs, opportunity, and security. Vote for the 
Democratic budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First off, let me start off by saying to my friend from Maryland: I 
am glad we are having this debate, and this is the last time the two of 
us are doing this, and it has been a pleasure.
  I also want to thank the staff. All of our staffs have put so much 
hard work into this. I want to thank our staff, led

[[Page 6121]]

by our great staff director, Austin Smythe, for all that he has done. I 
want to thank the people over at the CBO who work really long hours 
producing all of these estimates so that we can write these budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record these names to show our thanks.


                 House Budget Committee Majority Staff

       Austin Smythe
       Andy Morton
       Tim Flynn
       Conor Sweeney
       Vanessa Day
       William Allison
       Brian Bolduc
       Dennis Teti
       Paul Restuccia
       Nicole Foltz
       Jon Romito
       Mary Popadiuk
       Jon Burks
       Jim Herz
       Matt Hoffmann
       Ted McCann
       Stephanie Parks
       Justin Bogie
       Shane Skelton
       Gene Emmans
       Kara McKee
       Jenna Spealman
       Donald Schneider
       Alex Stoddard
       Jose Guillen
       Richard ``Dick'' Magee
       Eric Davis
       Interns: Boyd Garriott, Gabriel Krimm, and Alyssa Wootton


   Personal Staff (Representative Paul Ryan, Wisconsin, 1st District)

       Cameron Clark
       Chad Herbert
       Casey Higgins
       Susie Liston
       Joyce Meyer
       Teresa Mora
       Sarah Peer
       Lauren Schroeder
       Kevin Seifert
       Andy Speth
       Allison Steil
       Tricia Stoneking
       Robert Swift
       Danyell Tremmel
       Megan Wagner
       Tory Wickiser
       Interns: Harrison Balistreri, Sarah Holtz, Gretchen Wade, 
     and Brittney Weiland

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the differences between our 
budgets and our approaches could not be more clear. Let me take them 
one by one.
  We have had a number of substitutes on the floor. There is one 
consistent theme from the substitutes offered by our friends on the 
other side of the aisle. While we are offering a budget that balances 
the budget and pays off the debt, they are offering a budget that 
never, ever balances.
  They are starting with a $1.8 trillion tax increase. That is on top 
of the $1.7 trillion tax increase that has already occurred. They go as 
high as offering in the Progressive Caucus budget a $6.6 trillion tax 
increase.
  They are offering not only a spending on autopilot going out of 
control today, they want to raise it higher, $791 billion in this 
budget to as much as $3.3 trillion in more spending. They are offering 
a budget to add trillions to the debt.
  Now, when they say they want to raise taxes, and that is what their 
proposal is, again, they like to say it is just on the rich: Anybody 
listening, don't worry, it is not on you, it is on just these few rich 
people.
  Here is the problem. They have a funny way of defining the rich. They 
have a funny way of defining it as small business. Most of our jobs 
come from small businesses. Those are the people who are going to get 
hit with this tax increase. That is where our jobs come from.
  Second, we have seen this movie before, and we know what it looks 
like. They have already raised taxes $1.7 trillion. Look at the taxes 
on ObamaCare. They were supposed to be taxes on the rich. It taxes 
everybody. It doesn't matter how much you make. You are going to get 
hit with a tax: a mandate tax, a sell-your-house tax, taxes, taxes, 
taxes.
  Are they raising all these taxes so they can pay off the debt? No--to 
fuel more spending.
  Here is what we are proposing. Here is what the gentleman doesn't 
want to say. We are saying have revenue-neutral tax reform, meaning 
take the amount of revenues we bring into the government today, keep 
that same revenue, but clean up this awful Tax Code. Plug the 
loopholes, cancel loopholes so that we can lower tax rates for families 
and businesses across the board to create more jobs, more economic 
growth. We have already gotten the studies that tell us doing this 
helps a lot.
  We are taxing American businesses at much higher tax rates than our 
foreign competitors are taxing theirs, and they are winning and we are 
losing. So we are saying, fundamental comprehensive tax reform, stop 
picking winners and losers in Washington, lower tax rates.
  Second, this House Democrat budget increases spending by $740 billion 
above what would happen if we did nothing. That is $5.9 trillion more 
than our budget. They used to call this stimulus. I remember just a few 
short years ago all these ideas were called stimulating and stimulus. 
Remember, Mr. Chairman, we have done this. And guess what? Stimulus 
didn't work.
  So now they call it investment. If you disinvest, that means you are 
not spending enough. An investment, just remember every time you hear 
the word investment, it means: tax, borrow, spend in Washington. Take 
money from hardworking taxpayers, borrow from the next generation, and 
spend more money in Washington. That means take money from businesses, 
take money from small businesses, take money from people creating jobs, 
borrow more money from China, leverage it against the next generation, 
spend more in Washington.
  We will spend $3.5 trillion this year. Spending is slated to go above 
about 5.2 percent on average. We are basically saying let's get this 
under control; 3.5 percent is enough.
  What they will also say is look at what we are doing on Medicare, all 
these awful things that we are doing on Medicare. We are saving it for 
the current generation by preserving it as is, and then we are making 
sure that it is there for the next generation.
  Here is the dirty little secret. Look at what they have already done 
to Medicare. It was ObamaCare that ended Medicare as we know it, it was 
ObamaCare that raided $700 billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare, 
it was ObamaCare that set up this new rationing board of 15 unelected, 
unaccountable bureaucrats to put price controls on Medicare, which will 
lead to denied care for seniors.
  It is the House Democrats' budget that is complicit with the Medicare 
trust fund going bankrupt in 2026. Our budget strengthens Medicare, 
saves it for this generation, and puts reforms in place so that the 
next generation can count on it without having 15 bureaucrats running 
the program.
  Look at what they are proposing on national security. They track 
right along with the President's budget. They are proposing to cut 
compensation for our men and women in uniform, to hollow out our force, 
to cut training and readiness and structure, not to lower the deficit, 
but to fuel more domestic spending. So we will have an Army lower than 
anything we have seen before World War II, we will have a Navy smaller 
than what we haven't seen since before World War I, we will have an Air 
Force smaller than we have ever had before, not for deficit reduction, 
but for more domestic spending. We reject that approach.
  Finally, their budget adds $4.3 trillion to our national debt. That 
is despite this massive tax increase. Their budget never balances, 
ever.
  Under their plan, in 2024, the deficit will be $637 billion. At the 
end of the day it is just not credible.
  We trust the American people to have more control over their lives. 
We reject this budget. Let's balance the budget, grow the economy, 
create jobs, and pay off our debt, and pass the House Republican 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 6122]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 261, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               AYES--163

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

                               NOES--261

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Jackson Lee
     Lewis
     McAllister
     Miller, George
     Perlmutter
     Runyan
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1126

  Messrs. CASSIDY, SOUTHERLAND, and STEWART changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. RUSH and CUELLAR changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider a 
final period of general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Budget.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished House majority 
leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Pro-Growth Budget Act.
  Right now, America is not working for too many people. For years, our 
economy has remained stagnant and job growth weak.

                              {time}  1130

  At the current time, three out of four Americans report that they are 
living paycheck to paycheck. The ability to climb the economic ladder 
of success and live the American Dream is becoming much more difficult 
for millions of people.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the status quo in America, but it is a status 
quo that we must not accept. Our constituents deserve better. Our 
constituents deserve a government that is focused on turning this 
economy around and making America work again, and work again for 
everybody.
  In the House, there are some very clear differences on how to solve 
America's problems. My Democratic colleagues believe the best way to 
move the country forward is with $1.8 trillion in new tax hikes so that 
this government can even spend more. That is not right, and it is not 
fair. Working Americans deserve a chance to put more of their hard-
earned paychecks into their personal savings accounts, to invest that 
or spend it on their families before they are forced to send it to 
Washington.
  We House Republicans have a better plan, a balanced budget that will 
begin to provide working families, many of whom are struggling to make 
ends meet, with just a little relief. The budget before us will create 
jobs. It will cut wasteful spending. It will reform our Tax Code and 
hold Washington more accountable. Plain and simple, this budget is pro-
growth. This budget is about making America work again.
  Today, Members of the House have a very simple choice. We can 
continue the status quo, stand in the way of economic progress and new 
opportunities for working middle class families, or we can choose to 
lead the American people down a path to prosperity where all Americans 
have a chance at success.
  Mr. Chairman, passing a budget is not only an important step to 
restoring trust in government and faith in our economy, it is our legal 
obligation to do so. The House passes a budget even when our paychecks 
aren't on the line. The House Republicans choose to lead on this issue. 
We have passed a budget every year since taking the majority. So let's 
now stand together and fulfill one of the most important duties that we 
were elected to do and pass a budget that the American people that sent 
us here can be proud of.

[[Page 6123]]

  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, for his continued dedication to reining in 
wasteful spending and restoring fiscal responsibility and in balancing 
the budget.
  I also want to thank the other members of the Budget Committee for 
their hard work continuously on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this budget on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start by joining the chairman of the 
committee and thanking both the Democratic and Republican staff of the 
Budget Committee for their hard work and submit, for the Record, their 
names.


                  Budget Committee Minority Staff List

       Sarah Abernathy
       Ellen Balis
       Kathleen Capstick
       Zachary Cuff (Intern)
       Ken Cummings
       Bridgett Frey
       Jocelyn M. Griffin
       Tom Kahn
       Najy Kamal
       Andrea Leung
       Sheila McDowell
       Diana Meredith
       Erin Miller
       Kimberly Overbeek
       Karen Robb
       Scott Russell
       Beth Stephenson
       Andy Van Wye (Intern)
       Ted Zegers

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to take this 
opportunity, it is Chairman Ryan's last year as head of the Budget 
Committee, and I do want to thank him for the professional way in which 
he has conducted the committee.
  Lest he think I am getting carried away, this is an example where 
process did not lead to a better product, and that is why we are here 
today because, unfortunately, I have to report that this House 
Republican budget is the worst of the Republican budgets I have seen in 
the last 3 years for the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets reflect the choices we make for our country. 
They tell the American people what we care about and what we care less 
about. At every juncture in this House Republican budget, they choose 
to protect very powerful special interests and the most wealthy in our 
country at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of all the 
other priorities. For example, they have tax cuts that actually 
encourage companies to ship American jobs, not products, overseas, 
while our budget invests right here in the United States of America.
  Now, we heard the Republican leader say we want a better economy for 
everybody. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that this 
Republican budget will slow down economic growth right now for the next 
couple of years, that it will reduce job growth in the next couple of 
years, all while doing what? Providing another windfall tax break to 
millionaires.
  Yes, look at their budget. They want to drop the top tax rate, 39 
percent to 25 percent, full 30 percent. What does that mean? $200,000 
average tax break for millionaires. Who finances it in their budget? 
Well, math tells you middle-income taxpayers pay more. They pay $2,000 
more per, average, in order to finance trickle-down economics, even 
though we know from experience that that was a dead end for this 
country.
  While our Republican colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, 
apparently they don't care enough about it to close one single special 
interest tax loophole to help reduce the deficit--not one, not a hedge 
fund owner, not a big oil company, not one.
  And because they say hands off the most powerful and the most 
privileged, their budget has to come after everybody else, and it does. 
So it hits our kids' education, early education, K-12. College students 
are asked to pay more interest. In fact, they got $45 billion savings 
by charging college kids more interest while they are still in college 
and not working, again, while hands off the powerful special interests.
  Seniors, seniors on Medicare see the prescription drug doughnut hole 
open, the safety net, again, shredded. And all for what purpose?
  Now, they claim that they are going to somehow balance the budget at 
the end of the 10-year window. But you know what? They can't have it 
both ways. We have had over 50 votes here in the House of 
Representatives from our colleagues to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 
But guess what. They have got $2 trillion in this budget from revenues 
and savings from the Affordable Care Act.
  We use some of those savings. We use those Medicare savings to 
strengthen Medicare.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield the final minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader who has 
been a fighter for America's priorities.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I congratulate the Budget Committee for the hard work that you have 
done.
  I wish we had more than 10 minutes on each side to discuss the House 
Democratic budget, but so it is.
  Here we are, about to leave for the holy season of Easter and 
Passover. It reminds me of the Gospel of Matthew, in which Matthew 
says: ``For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.''
  This budget is a statement as to where our treasure is and where our 
hearts are for the American people. A budget, as our distinguished 
ranking member said, must be a statement of our national values. What 
is important to us as a nation should be reflected in our spending 
priorities, in our treasure.
  But you be the judge, I want to say to the American people, but the 
Speaker will not allow me to address the American people, so their 
representatives here. Is it a statement of your national values, of our 
country, to give a $200,000 tax break to people making over $1 million 
a year at the expense of increasing taxes $2,000 for the middle class? 
Is that a statement of our values? I didn't think so.
  Is it a statement of our values, in order to finance the special 
interest privilege that is in the Republican budget, is it a statement 
of your values to cut over 170,000 children from Head Start? Is that a 
statement of our values? Children learning, parents earning, 
opportunity, fairness.
  Is it a statement of your values to support a budget that says, 3.5 
million children in our country, disadvantaged children in economically 
disadvantaged areas, will have cuts in the budget of Title I? Is that a 
statement of our values in order to give tax breaks to Big Oil?
  Is it a statement of our values to say to aspiring families, some the 
first in their families to be able to go to college, that we are going 
to cut over half a million, maybe over 600,000 kids from Head Start? Is 
that a statement of values to say to over half a million young people 
you will not have opportunity to have higher education? Instead, we are 
going to give that same amount of money to Big Oil for tax incentives 
for them to drill. Is that a statement of our values? I don't think so. 
I don't think so.
  So where is their treasure and where is their heart?
  The treasure in this Republican budget is just as what our ranking 
member said; it is with the special interests and the wealthiest people 
in our country. It is a trickle-down approach that has never worked. It 
has worked for the rich. It has worked for the special interests and 
their supporters, but it has not worked for the great middle class.
  Do we need any more evidence of it not working, that these same 
warmed-over policies that existed in the Bush era that took us to the 
Great Recession, a great recession where we met right before the 
election in September of 2008, where the Chairman of the Fed said to 
us, if we do not act immediately, we will not have an economy by 
Monday? This was a Thursday night. That is where these policies took us 
at the end of the Bush years, and we are still digging out of that 
recession.
  Instead of having a budget that lifts us up to create jobs, to create 
growth, to invest in science and education, to keep America number one, 
they call their budget a path to prosperity. It is

[[Page 6124]]

a road to recession and always has been, and that is what it is now.
  So at least we have a few minutes to discuss our value system, where 
our treasure is, with the richest and the special interests or with the 
great middle class and those who aspire to it, and, therefore, where 
our heart is in terms of budget priorities in this budget.
  This is an important budget. Some people want to dismiss it as a joke 
because it is so outrageous. It is deadly serious. It isn't funny at 
all because of the impact that it has in the lives of America's 
families, our children, our seniors, voucherizing Medicare, removing 
the guarantee of Medicare for our seniors.

                              {time}  1145

  Is that a statement of our values, to say to our seniors: you are on 
your own, you are on your own?
  I don't think so. So if our heart is with the middle class, we will 
put our treasure there and make investments in education and job 
creation, investments in science.
  I will just close. Again, I started with the Bible. Scientific 
research gives us an almost biblical power to cure. Where there is 
scientific opportunity, we almost have a moral responsibility--
certainly a moral imperative to invest in it, to improve health, to 
improve the quality of health in our country, and to make sure that 
everybody has access to it.
  But don't worry about the access to it because our investments in 
basic scientific research are seriously impaired by this budget. It 
does violence to any concept of science that promotes innovation and 
keeps making America number one, advancing innovation with investments 
in science and technology.
  It undermines investments in how we protect our environment, so that 
our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water, about how we 
protect our America by investments in science and technology to do so, 
and the intelligence to avoid conflict and the investments in job 
creation that science will enable us to do.
  So if you believe in knowledge, if you would believe in fact, if you 
believe in the middle class, you must reject the Republican budget. You 
must reject the Republican budget.
  What the Republican leadership is asking Members to do is something 
that I don't know that they share that value. Certainly, Republicans 
across the country do not. Republicans across the country support 
education, investments in science, and the rest. Any poll will show you 
that.
  Just one other thing: if you really want to reduce the deficit, one 
of the fastest ways you can do it is to have a budget that does as ours 
does, to include comprehensive immigration reform, which reduces the 
deficit by $900 billion with a b, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  So by reason of treasure, by reason of heart, by reason of value, by 
reason of ethic, by reason of honoring our responsibilities to the 
American people, vote a good, strong ``no'' on the Ryan Republican 
budget. It is a path to ruin. It is not a path to prosperity.
  Mr. Van Hollen's budget is a budget about growth, about investment, 
about keeping America number one, about strengthening the middle class, 
which is the backbone of our democracy.
  Vote ``no'' on the Ryan budget.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Let me first start off by saying, Mr. Chairman, you have presided 
over this budget for many years. You have set a great example for the 
rest of us. This is your last year serving, and I want to thank you for 
what you have done for this institution. Thank you for setting a great 
example.
  Mr. Chairman, what this debate comes down to is a question of trust. 
We have offered a budget because we trust the American people. Unlike 
the Senate Democrats who, once again, have punted, have chosen not even 
to offer a budget this year, we trust the people to make an honest 
assessment. We trust them to make the right choice for their future.
  Now, to their credit, the House Democrats have offered budgets as 
well. The problem is they put their trust in Washington. Every time you 
hear this word ``investment,'' just know what that means: take from 
hard-working taxpayers, borrow more money from our next generation, 
from other countries, and spend it in Washington.
  Time and again, they are proposing to put government in the driver's 
seat. They have already engineered a takeover of our entire health care 
sector. They are overregulating our energy sector. They are depriving 
us of jobs. They won't even give us the Keystone pipeline.
  They are proposing yet new taxes, another $1.8 trillion increase. 
They are proposing more cronyism. They are proposing more control for 
Washington, less control of our communities, less control over our 
businesses, less control over our lives, less control over our futures. 
In my respectful opinion, it is a vision that is both paternalistic, 
arrogant, and downright condescending.
  You know, Big Government, in theory, it sounds compelling. In 
practice, it is totally different. Remember, if you like your doctor, 
you can keep your doctor. Remember, if you like your health care plan, 
you can keep your health care plan. Remember, if government just takes 
over this sector, it will lower your costs.
  Big Government in practice is so different than in the theory. The 
results have nothing to do with the rhetoric.
  We, on the other hand, trust the people. We are offering a balanced 
budget that pays down the debt. We are offering patient-centered 
solutions, so patients are the nucleus of the health care system, not 
the government.
  We are offering a plan to save Medicare now and for future 
generations. We are offering a stronger safety net with State 
flexibility to help meet people's needs and to help people get from 
welfare to work, to make the most of their lives. We are offering a 
progrowth Tax Code. We are offering more energy jobs.
  You can boil the differences down to one question: Who knows better, 
the people or Washington? We have made our choice with this budget. I 
trust the American people to make theirs.
  Mr. Chairman, let's call the votes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, a number of political pundits have asked why 
House Republicans are advancing a budget this year considering the 
House and Senate have already agreed upon a top-level budgetary 
baseline for the upcoming fiscal year. Apparently, Senate Democrats 
agree with these pundits and have announced that they will not produce 
a budget. Clearly, these pundits and Senate Democrats have been in 
Washington for far too long.
  The American people did not send us to Congress to look for shortcuts 
and to find the easy way out. Last year's budget agreement did not 
magically solve our fiscal challenges, so we need to roll up our 
sleeves and get to work.
  Thankfully, under the leadership of Budget Committee Chairman Paul 
Ryan, House Republicans are doing just that. Our budget makes the tough 
decisions necessary to grow our economy by curbing the growth of 
federal spending and making critical reforms to our entitlement 
programs.
  Critics of the Republican budget call our spending cuts draconian. On 
the current path, spending will grow, on average, by 5.2 percent a year 
over the next decade. Under this budget, spending will grow, on 
average, by 3.5 percent a year. That's not austerity, that's 
responsibility.
  Our budget does cut $5.1 trillion in spending and balances over the 
next ten years--without raising taxes. On the other hand, the 
Democrat's budget raises taxes by $1.8 trillion, increases spending by 
$740 billion more than current policy, while growing our annual deficit 
to $637 billion in 2024.
  While the differences between our budgetary priorities are clear, it 
is essential that both sides of the aisle work together and build upon 
last year's budget agreement. Moving back to regular order of approving 
a budget and advancing the annual individual appropriations bills is 
the best form of governance possible. Every year, our federal agencies 
and programs need to be closely examined so that we can remove any 
waste, fraud, abuse or inefficiencies.
  Mr. Chair, the budget before us is an important step towards 
establishing a responsible

[[Page 6125]]

fiscal foundation for the next fiscal year as well as the years to 
come. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House Budget 
Committee and Appropriations Committee in executing the vision and 
priorities laid out in this budget.
  I once again want to thank Chairman Ryan for his thoughtful, 
dedicated work on this budget, which will be his last as Chairman, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chair, I will vote for the budget proposal 
framework put forth by Chairman Paul Ryan.
  I vote to reaffirm my support for the principles behind the 
bipartisan Ryan Murray budget agreement;
  For efforts to simplify our nation's tax code to make it simpler and 
fairer for all involved;
  For repeal of the president's misguided and unworkable health care 
law;
  For efforts to reign in the president's wasteful spending proposals 
and burdensome regulations, which are preventing our economy from 
reaching its full potential;
  For efforts to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the 
support they need;
  For efforts to responsibly reduce our $17 trillion plus debt, which 
is a national security concern;
  And for efforts to balance our nation's budget--the President's 
budget proposal never achieves balance.
  Mr. Chair, I will vote for efforts to reform our entitlement programs 
to ensure that they are preserved and protected for future generations. 
This budget proposal is a thoughtful document that forces the Congress 
to face reality--these programs, which are on autopilot, are simply 
unsustainable in their current form.
  And we must reform these programs because they consume roughly two 
thirds of our nation's spending. We must preserve our ability to 
quickly respond to any crisis, foreign or domestic, while still 
ensuring we have the ability to make the needed investments that will 
spur economic private industry growth and ingenuity.
  Just like the bipartisan Ryan Murray budget agreement, I do not agree 
with every line in this budget framework, and I will work to improve 
any future legislation that may be considered as a result of its 
adoption. But I do agree that we have a duty to offer ideas in the 
public sphere. I will vote yes because our fiscal challenges are real, 
and they must be addressed.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I will vote for H. Con. Res. 96 because I 
continue to believe the Congress has a responsibility to produce a 
budget each year. As a longstanding member of the House Appropriations 
Committee, I feel it is important that Congress have an open and honest 
debate about the fiscal challenges our country faces, especially our 
out-of-control entitlement spending that continues to deplete the 
federal coffers of resources to invest in defense, infrastructure, 
education, science and research on cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, 
ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), juvenile diabetes, multiple sclerosis, 
autism and other diseases. These investments are what made America 
great in the 20th century, but are on track to be completely overtaken 
within a decade due to unchecked entitlement spending growth.
  When I came to the floor to vote for last year's budget, we were 
$16.7 trillion in debt. Today, we are over $17.5 trillion in debt. 
That's a nearly trillion dollar increase in one year. It's projected to 
grow to over $27 trillion in 10 years, another $10 trillion increase. 
Our unfunded obligations and liabilities are now projected to be well 
of $70 trillion, and CBO's February 2014 budget outlook projected this 
year's deficit to be about $514 billion. These numbers get worse with 
each passing year.
  Equally troubling, this mounting debt is increasingly held by foreign 
countries. In 1970, 6 percent of debt held by the public was in foreign 
hands. In 1990, it was 19 percent. Today, nearly 50 percent of our 
publically held debt is in foreign hands--and it is held by countries 
like China and Saudi Arabia which certainly do not share our interests 
or values.
  My vote today reflects my desire to advance the congressional budget 
process to confront these serious challenges. While there are many good 
things in this budget, my vote should not be interpreted as a 
reflection of my satisfaction with the legislation itself. Simply put, 
I believe this is a flawed proposal that stands no chance of being 
adopted by both chambers of Congress this year. I continue to have 
serious concerns with several of the provisions and believe it falls 
short of being a plan that can garner the bipartisan support necessary 
to put our nation on a path towards fiscal responsibility.
  Most notably, this budget once again falls short in its failure to 
incorporate most of the recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-
Bowles Commission. Regrettably, another year has gone by where the 
president and both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have 
failed to advance the only bipartisan fiscal reforms that would address 
our debt and deficit in a manner that could result in real progress.
  As I have repeatedly said, I would much prefer to vote for a 
bipartisan budget modeled off the Simpson-Bowles plan. It could be 
improved by incorporating changes in existing law and other proposals, 
such as those produced by the discussions between the president and 
Speaker Boehner, and plans offered by Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici, 
and Representative Ryan and Senator Wyden. Like the Ryan plan before us 
today, I do not agree with every line in the Simpson-Bowles plan. But 
only a budget based on this model can put our nation on a sustainable, 
long-term path to replace sequestration and reform our nation's 
entitlement programs so they will exist for future generations.
  As much as both sides might prefer that their party control both 
chambers of Congress and the White House, this is simply not the case. 
And it's unlikely to change until 2016 at the earliest. Either the 
Congress can get serious about adopting budget reforms that have 
bipartisan consensus and could be signed into law, or we can continue 
having these same quixotic debates, year after year, while our debt and 
deficit grow unabated. The debt and deficit numbers continue to get 
worse, and none of the actions taken by the Congress--including 
sequestration--have made a meaningful impact on our fiscal situation.
  For the last eight years I have been working toward finding consensus 
on bipartisan budget reforms based on the premise that all Americans, 
not just one group or another, will have to give something towards 
reducing our debt and deficits. Starting in 2006, during the Bush 
Administration, I began advocating for a bipartisan commission--the 
Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) Commission--to identify budget 
reforms that could win the support of both Republicans and Democrats. 
The Simpson-Bowles Commission, appointed in 2010, was formed largely in 
response to efforts in the House and Senate to advance the SAFE 
Commission. The commission's co-chairs, former Senators Alan Simpson 
and Erskine Bowles, ultimately produced a package of bipartisan reforms 
that was serious and effective.
  Unfortunately, President Obama and congressional leadership have 
spent the last three years running away from the Simpson-Bowles 
recommendations. When my colleagues and I have brought legislation to 
the floor of the House based on these recommendations, the efforts have 
fallen short due to a lack of support from both Republican and Democrat 
leadership. I believe their misguided opposition represents a failure 
of leadership that they will come to regret in the years ahead, as our 
budget challenges grow more and more dire.
  To date, we have instead been presented with tepid proposals that 
fail to meaningfully impact our debt, or proposals, like this budget, 
that embrace a vision for budget reform that stands little chance of 
passing and becoming law.
  This year, President Obama has retreated from even modest budget 
reforms that he has proposed in the past, such as chained CPI. I 
believe history will not look kindly on his failure to lead efforts to 
bring both parties together around meaningful reforms to address this 
existential national threat. His failure to lead over the last five 
years is directly reflected in the budget that the House has passed 
today, which reflects a conservative blueprint for budget reform rather 
than reforms based on bipartisan consensus.
  There's a certain irony that the budget approved today continues to 
draw from only one section of the Simpson-Bowles framework: making our 
federal workforce contribute more towards its retirement and taking 
steps towards ending the defined benefit retirement plan. Yet again, 
the Congress is targeting just one group of Americans for additional 
sacrifice--just as has been done for offsets in past budget agreements. 
This flies in the face of the Simpson-Bowles vision of shared sacrifice 
among all Americans in fixing our debt and deficit and, as I have said 
many times, is just wrong. To cite the Simpson-Bowles recommendations 
as an excuse to single out additional cuts to federal employees is 
disingenuous and inappropriate.
  My colleagues often forget that while there are many federal 
employees in the capital region, it is worth noting that more than 85 
percent of the workforce is outside of Washington. They also may not 
realize that more than 65 percent of all federal employees work in 
agencies that support our national defense capabilities as we continue 
to fight the War on Terror.
  The first American killed in Afghanistan, Mike Spann, was a CIA agent 
and a constituent from my congressional district. CIA,

[[Page 6126]]

FBI, DEA agents, and State Department employees are serving side-by-
side with our military in the fight against the Taliban.
  Federal employees include the Border Patrol and Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement agents who are working to stop the flow of illegal 
immigrants and drugs across our borders.
  They are the medical researchers at NIH working to develop cures for 
cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and autism. They are the VA doctors and 
nurses treating veterans from World War II to the present day. They are 
the NASA astronauts and engineers working to support the International 
Space Station and build our nation's exploration program. These are 
just a few examples of the hardworking people that serve our country 
each day that this budget unfairly targets.
  I am also concerned with a provision in the budget that would only 
replace one federal employee for every three vacancies. Do we really 
want to cut the number of FBI and Border Patrol agents and VA doctors 
by two-thirds? This proposal amounts to an indiscriminate sequestration 
of the federal workforce. While there may be some agencies where 
reductions are necessary, I do not support this indiscriminate approach 
of doing so. Taken together, these proposals on federal employees may 
very well undermine the federal workforce.
  It is often said that budgets are about choices, and I fear that yet 
another year will go by where we fail to make the tough choices--yet 
tough choices that members from both parties can support--to make real 
progress in confronting our debt and deficit. Until the president and 
congressional leadership start to incorporate the Simpson-Bowles 
recommendations, or a bold plan like this that gets control of the debt 
and deficit, into their budgets, we will likely never address the 
structural reforms that must be made to responsibly get our nation's 
fiscal house in order. This should be done in a manner that involves 
shared sacrifice from all Americans, not just certain groups of 
Americans.
  I am proud to have served on the House Appropriations Committee for 
most of my tenure in the Congress, where each year we produce 
appropriations bills that make tough choices, yet the bills often pass 
with bipartisan support. Over the last several years, the full 
Appropriations Committee has made more than $100 billion in cuts to 
discretionary spending. The Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations 
subcommittee, which I chair, has contributed more than $12 billion 
towards those cuts. But we approached these cuts in a responsible 
manner and I am proud that we have often had bipartisan support for the 
bills we produce. It can be done, but it requires leadership.
  Mr. Chair, this budget is constructive for advancing the debate about 
our nation's fiscal challenges, and my vote today reflects my support 
for the process. But until this Congress passes a budget based on the 
bipartisan reforms recommended by the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, 
it is unlikely we will ever make real progress towards reducing our 
debt and deficit in a substantial way. It's time for leadership--from 
the president and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress--to deal 
with this issue.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Republican Budget for fiscal year 2015. We have two choices in front of 
us today. Two choices on the programs and investments we must fund and 
prioritize to balance deficit reduction with economic growth.
  The prosperity of our Nation is dependent on a strong middle class. 
Regrettably, the Republican budget would increase taxes on middle class 
families, provide huge tax breaks for the wealthy, and place the burden 
of paying for those tax breaks on working Americans, and their 
children.
  We have seen this budget before--a couple of times, in fact. It's the 
same budget Chairman Ryan brought us in 2013, and in 2012. It is a 
budget that works for the one percent at the expense of the other 99 
percent. It shifts future costs to seniors by ending the Medicare 
guarantee and raising prescription drug costs. It cuts investment in 
our Nation's infrastructure, slashes funding for program, that keep 
children from going hungry, and guts education through cuts to Pell 
grants and K-12 education. Republicans have proposed a budget that 
attacks the very foundation of the middle class. It is a path that will 
lead to economic uncertainty for millions of Americans, and it is not a 
budget I can support in good conscience.
  Democrats have offered a fair and balanced alternative budget that 
preserves our social safety net, keeps the promises made to our 
seniors, and asks all Americans to pay their fair share in reducing the 
deficit. Rhode Islanders understand more than most the toll 
unemployment can take on families and our communities. The Democratic 
alternative extends emergency unemployment insurance so those who are 
still struggling to find work can keep paying their bills. It provides 
$76 billion for early childhood education and ensures college 
affordability by lowering student loan debt and including new repayment 
options. It provides funding for public transit, our highways, and 
supports critical investments in research and development, clean 
energy, manufacturing, and programs that make our industries 
competitive globally.
  I have a responsibility to my constituents, and to every American, to 
make sure that policies we enact in Congress provide for the long term 
health and prosperity of our Nation, which include getting people back 
to work, giving our businesses the support they need to grow, and 
building a skilled workforce to meet the demands of a 21st Century 
economy. The Republican budget takes us in the wrong direction. I urge 
my colleagues to reject the Republican Budget and support the 
Democratic alternative that keeps our promises to our seniors, 
preserves our social safety net, and balances deficit reduction with 
job growth and economic recovery.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in 
opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution and in strong support of 
the Congressional Black Caucus' Alternative Budget.
  To say that the Republican Budget Resolution is dangerous is an 
understatement. In particular, two areas of great concern to me will be 
negatively impacted by this resolution.
  As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology, and former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge 
the Appropriations Committee to come as close as possible to 
maintaining the FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act levels of 
investment in research and development and STEM education. R&D and STEM 
education are critical to our nation's future, and we support the 
topline levels in the President's FY 2015 budget request and 
Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative for the Federal R&D 
agencies as worthy of support.
  Shortchanging those accounts will wind up shortchanging our future 
economy and quality of life. Increased investment in these areas will 
pay significant dividends over the long run.
  As Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), we aim to be the, 
``Conscience of the Congress.'' I feel compelled to discuss the 
disastrous effects the Ryan Republican Budget would have on our 
country's research and development enterprise, and consequently, the 
disastrous effect this budget would have on America's future 
competitiveness.
  As others have pointed out, the Republican Budget cuts non-defense 
discretionary spending by 1.3 trillion dollars below the baseline 2014 
spending level, adjusted for inflation. These are massive cuts on top 
of a budget that has already seen large reductions in recent years. The 
effects on research and development would be dramatic. The American 
Association for the Advancement of Science estimates that the Ryan 
budget would cut civilian research and development by 92 billion 
dollars from the current baseline and 112 billion dollars below the 
President's budget request.
  These are striking reductions. Please keep in mind here that the 
National Science Foundation's total annual budget is just a little over 
seven billion dollars. So the Republican Budget cuts more research and 
development funding every year than the entire annual budget of the 
National Science Foundation.
  Additionally, as a senior Member of the Transportation & 
Infrastructure Committee, I am incensed that this budget fails to 
address our nation's aging infrastructure.
  Millions of Americans would be negatively impacted by this measure, 
leaving families, individuals and businesses with virtually no 
transportation options. This proposal would do away with Amtrak 
operating subsidies, potentially eliminating service for more than 20 
million people.
  Most shamefully, however, this budget includes virtually no highway 
or transit investment and does little to address the impending crisis 
facing our nation's highways. In fact, this resolution assigns a 
spending level of $20.95 billion for transportation and infrastructure. 
This is a reduction of $50.99 billion from last year and eviscerates 
the total transportation and infrastructure budget.
  For the third year in a row, the American Society of Civil Engineers 
(ASCE) has awarded our nation's infrastructure a ``D+.'' Time and time 
again, it becomes clear that investing in our infrastructure lays the 
groundwork for a competitive economy. What we need now is targeted 
investment in our infrastructure, not draconian reductions.
  Our infrastructure is too important to gamble on and the Republican 
Budget resolution is a roll of the dice. It would result in the loss of

[[Page 6127]]

thousands of construction related jobs in already economically 
disadvantaged areas and cut public transportation funding to 
historically low levels.
  Quite frankly, this budget is dangerous and I ask my Republican 
colleagues to scrap this plan and work across the aisle to craft a plan 
that invests in our future. A budget that ignores funding for science 
and technology, and fails to include targeted infrastructure 
investments, fails the American future.
  The Congressional Black Caucus' budget includes $500 billion in 
targeted investments and programs that invest in our future. It closes 
tax loopholes, deductions and exceptions that only benefit the wealthy. 
Addressing the past wrongs of wealth inequality will help create an 
economy that works for every American. Passing the CBC's Alternative 
Budget is the first step in righting those wrongs.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Republican Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The budget put forth 
by House Republicans is unnecessary and unwise. Congress has already 
passed a budget target for FY2015. The House Appropriations Committee 
has already marked up two bills. This Republican budget is a complete 
distraction from the real work Congress should be focusing on--issues 
such as comprehensive immigration reform, the restoration of long-term 
unemployment insurance, the Paycheck Fairness Act or others. Instead, 
Republican leaders have wasted another legislative week with endless 
floor debate on a budget that recycles many of the rejected Tea Party 
proposals from the past. Once again, Congressional Republicans are 
demonstrating their true priorities: providing massive tax breaks for 
the wealthiest Americans and corporations at the expense of Middle 
Class America.
  This ten year Republican budget is the wrong vision for Minnesota and 
America. Yet again, the GOP abandons investments that ensure broad-
based economic prosperity today and into the future. This budget 
jeopardizes the health and economic security of our seniors by re-
opening the donut hole and ending the Medicare guarantee. Their 
proposal fails our children by making irresponsible cuts to our schools 
and Pell Grants, putting the dream of a college education out of reach 
for millions of young adults. Extreme reductions to the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Social Services Block Grant, 
and Medicaid will inflict unnecessary pain on our children, working 
families, and seniors. By slashing investments in infrastructure, their 
budget rejects a proven path to grow our economy and create jobs. 
Instead, it advances the priorities of the wealthiest Americans--
massive tax breaks for the top one percent and corporations, while 
adding to the tax burden of middle class families and destroying the 
social safety net. The Ryan-Republican budget is a recipe for American 
economic decline and increased pain for the vulnerable. It moves our 
nation backwards and gives up on the American dream, the idea that 
everyone has a fair shot at success. I strongly reject these misguided 
priorities and the Republicans' harmful vision for our Nation.
  Instead, I am pleased to support the budget resolution offered by the 
Democrats. Our budget proposal prioritizes the needs of our seniors and 
middle class families. It strengthens the social safety net, protects 
Medicare, and preserves the Affordable Care Act to help ensure all 
Americans have access to affordable health coverage. The Democratic 
Alternative invests in the needs of our communities and will help 
create jobs by expanding tax incentives for low- and middle-class 
families. It makes critical investments in education to help make 
college more affordable and ensure that all students have the 
opportunity to succeed. And it rejects the reckless cuts caused by 
sequestration to non-defense spending starting next year, while 
maintaining the funding level requested by the President for defense. 
The Democratic Alternative is a vision for our country that will keep 
our communities and our economy strong into the future.
  There were also good ideas put forward by the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus (CPC) and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Both 
budget proposals would help support the needs of Minnesota families and 
keep America strong.
  The bottom line is that the Ryan-Republican budget resolution 
increases the tax breaks for wealthy, abandons America's middle class, 
and punishes the poor. I came to Congress to move our Nation forward. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this backward vision put forward by 
Chairman Ryan and instead support the Democratic Alternative.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, the federal budget is about much more 
than just dollars and cents. It is a moral document that reflects our 
values and our vision for our nation's future.
  Unfortunately the Republican budget before us is a reflection of 
misguided priorities and values.
  Instead of creating jobs and opportunity for the middle class and 
those aspiring to realize the American dream the Republican budget 
recklessly and unfairly protects the super wealthy and special 
interests at the expense of everyone else.
  The Republican budget ignores the significant importance of investing 
in education, job training, research, innovation, modern day 
infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. In doing so, it will 
foolishly cripple our country's economic growth and the future 
potential of hardworking Americans and their families to create and 
successfully compete for 21st century jobs.
  The Republican plan also jeopardizes the wellbeing of our seniors by 
proposing to turn Medicare into a voucher system.
  In my state of California alone, this disastrous Republican budget 
would raise health care costs for seniors by ending the Medicare 
guarantee and forcing 358,862 seniors to pay more for prescription 
drugs. It would ransack our nation's commitment to education and push 
21,140 Californian children out of Head Start and deny Pell Grants to 
51,350 low income California college students. The Republican budget 
would also force California to turn more than 488,000 people away from 
job training, employment and job search assistance.
  And, according to the non partisan Congressional Budget Office, it 
would stall our nation's recovery by cutting economic growth by 2.5 
percent in the year 2015.
  I am proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues who have a 
different vision for America that responsibly reduces our deficit. Our 
vision respects the American people, gives them opportunity through the 
creation of good paying jobs that build and strengthens the middle 
class, protects the future and wellbeing of our children and insures we 
remain the greatest country in the world.
  The CHAIR. All time for debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nugent) 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 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, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 544, he reported the concurrent resolution back to the 
House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Under the rule, 
the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-minute vote will be followed 
by a 5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 205, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 177]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta

[[Page 6128]]


     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--205

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Carson (IN)
     Jackson Lee
     Lewis
     McAllister
     Miller, George
     Perlmutter
     Runyan
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1201

  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 177 I was unable to 
attend. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 10, 2014, I missed 
rollcall vote 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably 
detained today and missed roll Nos. 175 through 177. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll No. 176. I would have voted 
``nay'' on roll Nos. 175 and 177.

                          ____________________