[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Page 9335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    SECTION 3112 OF S. CON. RES. 11

  Mr. HATCH. On March 27, 2015, the Senate functioned properly by 
adopting S. Con. Res. 11 on the congressional budget for the U.S. 
Government for fiscal year 2016.
  Section 3112 of that budget resolution contains a specification of 
procedures governing cost estimates for what is defined to be ``major 
legislation'' as defined in section 3112(c)(1).
  I wish to provide a few comments to clarify that section of the 
budget resolution, and I understand that my distinguished colleague 
from Oregon, Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden, also wishes to 
provide separate and related comments.
  In setting out what is to be taken as ``major legislation,'' the 
budget resolution specifies that legislation may be designated to be 
``major'' if the Senator or House Member who is chairman or vice 
chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, designates the 
legislation as such ``for revenue legislation.'' Of course, such 
language is entirely consistent with existing laws and practice, under 
which the responsibility and control over revenue estimates in the 
congressional budget process lies squarely with the chair and vice 
chair of the JCT.
  The budget resolution also specifies that legislation may be 
designated to be ``major'' if the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
in the Senate or the House designates the legislation as such ``for all 
direct spending and revenue legislation.'' Of course, existing laws and 
practice assigns responsibility and control over spending estimates 
with the Budget Committees. However, the budget resolution includes 
``revenue legislation'' as part of what the Budget Committee chairs may 
use for designating legislation as being ``major.''
  As I understand the intent of the language, when major legislation is 
to be considered, there can be cases in which the legislation may 
require estimates both from the JCT and from the Congressional Budget 
Office, or CBO. In such cases, there is nothing to prohibit use of 
longstanding practice in which the Budget Committees consult with the 
chair and vice chair of the JCT to ensure that any necessary revenue 
estimates are arrived at by the JCT, for use in scoring major 
legislation. To be clear, however, nothing in the budget resolution 
should be taken to mean that the chairs of the Budget Committees have 
authority to interfere with the responsibility and control over revenue 
estimates in any part of the congressional budget process which, as I 
identified earlier, lies squarely with the chair and vice chair of the 
JCT.
  It is my understanding that the budget resolution does not direct or 
allow for any possibility of such interference, and my purpose in the 
remarks I am making today is to make that understanding clear. As I 
have mentioned, longstanding practice has been that if a need arises 
for the CBO to obtain information on major legislation from the JCT in 
terms of revenue estimates or effects of legislative proposals on 
marginal effective tax rates, Budget Committee members can ensure that 
those estimates and effects are obtained by consulting with the chair 
and vice chair of the JCT. This longstanding practice ensures smooth 
processing of the JCT's workload, and prevents any direct control or 
intervention in JCT's workload from other committees with other 
jurisdictions.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I share the concern of my colleague, the 
Finance Committee chairman, and I support his interpretation of this 
provision. In accordance with longstanding historical practice, and 
because of important practical considerations, the chair and vice chair 
of the Joint Committee on Taxation should exercise principal control 
over the revenue estimating process, and section 3112 should not be 
interpreted to authorize the chairs of the Budget Committees to 
interfere with JCT's responsibility for and control over revenue 
estimates in any part of the congressional budget process.
  However, I must note that on the broader point of dynamic estimates, 
I am opposed, and I was therefore opposed to section 3112 being 
included in the budget resolution and conference agreement to start 
with. Dynamic estimates rely on shaky math and convenient assumptions 
that reward advocates of tax cuts while punishing advocates of long-
term investments in people and our Nation's infrastructure.

                          ____________________