[House Report 113-17]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     113-17
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
                            ON THE BUDGET--
                            FISCAL YEAR 2014

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 25

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2014 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2023

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS




 March 15, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2014





113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     113-17
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

                            ON THE BUDGET--

                            FISCAL YEAR 2014

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 25

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2014 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2023

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS




 March 15, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202ï¿½09512ï¿½091800, or 866ï¿½09512ï¿½091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].  

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                     PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM PRICE, Georgia                   CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey              Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California            ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California              JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           TIM RYAN, Ohio
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
BILL FLORES, Texas                   BARBARA LEE, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi           MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            JARED HUFFMAN, California
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             TONY CARDENAS, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
LUKE MESSER, Indiana                 KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TOM RICE, South Carolina
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin

                           Professional Staff

                     Austin Smythe, Staff Director
                Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                                                                   Page
Introduction.....................................................     3
Summary Tables--Spending and Revenues:
    Table 1. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Total Spending 
      and 
      Revenue....................................................    10
    Table 2. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Discretionary 
      Spending...................................................    13
    Table 3. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Mandatory 
      Spending...................................................    15
    Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution.......    18
    Table 5. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution vs. the 
      President's Budget.........................................    19
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution....................    21
    Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and 
      Private 
      Forecasters................................................    25
    Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 
      Resolution.................................................    26
    Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal 
      Years 2012-2017............................................    27
Function-by-Function Presentation................................    39
    050 National Defense.........................................    39
    150 International Affairs....................................    43
    250 General Science, Space, and Technology...................    47
    270 Energy...................................................    49
    300 Natural Resources and Environment........................    53
    350 Agriculture..............................................    57
    370 Commerce and Housing Credit..............................    59
    400 Transportation...........................................    65
    450 Community and Regional Development.......................    69
    500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services.....    73
    550 Health...................................................    79
    570 Medicare.................................................    83
    600 Income Security..........................................    87
    650 Social Security..........................................    91
    700 Veterans Benefits and Services...........................    95
    750 Administration of Justice................................    97
    800 General Government.......................................    99
    900 Net Interest.............................................   101
    920 Allowances...............................................   103
    930 Government-Wide Savings..................................   105
    950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts........................   107
    970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism..   109
Revenue..........................................................   111
Committee on Ways and Means Letter...............................   115
Direct Spending Trends and Reforms...............................   119
    Table 9. Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   123
    Table 10. Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   125
Reconciliation...................................................   127
The Long-Term Budget Outlook.....................................   129
Section-by-Section Description...................................   131
    Title I. Recommended Levels and Amounts......................   131
    Title II. Reconciliation.....................................   132
    Title III. Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040, 
      and 2050...................................................   133
    Title IV. Reserve Funds......................................   134
    Title V. Estimates of Direct Spending........................   137
    Title VI. Budget Enforcement.................................   138
    Title VII. Policy Statements.................................   142
    Title VIII. Sense of the House Provisions....................   144
The Congressional Budget Process.................................   145
    Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee 
      on Appropriations..........................................   147
    Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget 
      amounts)...................................................   147
Statutory Controls Over the Budget...............................   151
    Table 13. Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Budget Authority....   155
    Table 14. Composition of Spending and BCA Automatic 
      Enforcement................................................   155
Enforcing Budgetary Levels.......................................   157
Reconciliation...................................................   161
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations...................   163
Votes of the Committee...........................................   165
Amendments Considered by the Committee on the Budget.............   189
Other Matters to be Discussed Under the Rules of the House.......   193
Minority Views...................................................   195
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.....   199


                              T A B L E S

                                                                   Page
Table 1. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Total Spending and 
  Revenue........................................................    10
Table 2. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Discretionary 
  Spending.......................................................    13
Table 3. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Mandatory Spending...    15
Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution...........    18
Table 5. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution vs. the President's 
  Budget.........................................................    19
Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and Private 
  Forecasters....................................................    25
Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 
  Resolution.....................................................    26
Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal 
  Years 2012-2017................................................    27
Table 9. Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
  Spending.......................................................   123
Table 10. Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
  Spending.......................................................   125
Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee on 
  Appropriations.................................................   147
Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget amounts)   147
Table 13. Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Budget Authority........   155
Table 14. Composition of Spending and BCA Automatic Enforcement..   155


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     113-17

======================================================================



 
                 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--
                            FISCAL YEAR 2014

                                _______
                                

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2014 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2023

                                _______
                                

 March 15, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, from the Committee on the Budget, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                     [To accompany H. Con. Res. 25]
                              INTRODUCTION

                              ----------                              


    Five years ago, we had a financial crisis. It flared up 
suddenly, though the tinder had built up over time. And the 
damage was severe. Four million families lost their homes.\1\ 
Nine million people lost their jobs.\2\ In some ways, 
Washington helped put out the flames. But much of what the 
government tried--more regulations, more spending--didn't work. 
In fact, it may have delayed the recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Tara Steele, ``Nearly Four Million Foreclosures Completed since 
Housing Crash,'' AGBeat, 3 December 2012.
    \2\Christopher J. Goodman and Steven M. Mance, ``Employment Loss 
and the 2007-09 Recession: An Overview,'' Monthly Labor Review, April 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, we face a crisis of another sort--one more 
predictable than the last and more dangerous than ever. We face 
the threat of a debt crisis.
    Our national debt is growing faster than our economy. In 
other words, our obligations are growing faster than our 
ability to pay them. Debt held by the public is 73 percent of 
our economy. By 2023, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] 
expects it to hit 77 percent. In fact, under an alternative 
scenario that assumes a plausible set of policy choices, it 
could hit 87 percent by 2023. And total national debt is 
already bigger than our economy.
    Federal spending is the problem. In 2023, the CBO expects 
revenue to be double last year's total. Yet the deficit will be 
nearly $1 trillion. As 80 million baby boomers retire and the 
population gets older, our entitlement programs will start 
bursting at the seams. In the next decade, Social Security will 
grow at an annual average of 5.8 percent. Medicare will grow at 
6.2 percent. And Medicaid--thanks in part to its expansion 
under the health-care law--will grow at an astounding 9.9 
percent.
    Without reform, entitlement programs will overwhelm all 
other items in the federal budget. And our national debt will 
overwhelm our economy. At some point, lenders might question 
our ability to pay our obligations. They might demand higher 
interest rates. If they did, we would have a debt crisis, and 
the pain would be intense. This budget offers a way to avoid 
this crisis. And it does so with an appreciation of what a debt 
crisis would mean to the country--and the individual.

                         Impact on the Country

    Today, we're enjoying historically low interest rates 
because investors have retreated to U.S. securities amid global 
turmoil. But the federal government's growing obligations may 
shake their confidence. In return, they might demand 
compensation for that higher risk. Foreigners own almost half 
of our publicly held debt.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\``Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities,'' Treasury 
Department, Accessed 3 March 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Federal Reserve is also buying large amounts of the 
federal debt as part of its quantitative-easing program to keep 
interest rates low. The combination of a large and growing debt 
and low interest rates makes the country vulnerable to a sudden 
shift in foreign-investor sentiment. In addition, we will have 
to roll over much of our debt in the next two years--when 
interest rates might be higher.
    As interest rates rose, debt payments would crowd out other 
parts of the budget. At some point, rates would reach 
prohibitive highs. Unable to borrow more money, the federal 
government would have to resort to austerity: big tax hikes and 
big spending cuts. To put that into perspective, Bill Gross, 
bond-fund manager at PIMCO, estimates that we would need to cut 
spending or raise taxes by 11 percent of GDP (or $1.6 trillion) 
over the next five to ten years to keep our debt below a crisis 
level.
    If we waited until a debt crisis broke out, the pain would 
be worse. Treasury bonds are the lynchpin of global debt 
markets. Virtually all financial institutions consider them 
safe, liquid assets. If interest rates rose, bond prices would 
drop, tearing up these firms' balance sheets. Len Burman, 
former director of the Tax Policy Center, warns that such an 
event would be ``disastrous.''\4\ The federal government would 
be unable to borrow money to support private enterprise, as it 
did during the financial crisis. As a result, he estimates that 
the economy would shrink by 25 to 30 percent--a contraction 
rivaling the Great Depression in size.\5\ He writes that ``it 
could easily take the nation a generation or longer to recover 
from [such a] disaster.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Len Burman et al. ``Catastrophic Budget Failure,'' Presented at 
Joint TPC-USC Conference, 15 January 2010.
    \5\Ibid.
    \6\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Impact on the Individual

    The effects of a debt crisis would cascade through the 
economy--all the way down to the individual. Nearly all 
consumer-borrowing rates are linked to long-term Treasury 
rates. As Treasury rates increased, rates on mortgages, credit 
cards, and car loans would follow.
    Roughly half of all household debt consists of variable-
interest-rate loans, so a spike in Treasury rates would lead to 
higher borrowing costs for families. One estimate suggests that 
an interest-rate increase of just one percentage point would 
increase annual interest payments for the average family by 
$400.\7\ In fact, the added costs could easily exceed $1,000 
per year. To a new homebuyer, a one-percentage-point increase 
in mortgage rates would add as much as 19 percent to the total 
cost.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Center for American Progress, ``Payment Due: The Effects of 
Higher Interest Rates on Consumers and the Economy,'' 20 September 
2004.
    \8\``Interest Rates Have Nowhere to Go but Up.'' New York Times, 10 
April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A debt crisis would not only mean higher interest payments. 
It would also cost jobs and slow wage growth. The corporate 
sector has roughly $11.5 trillion in loans that will mature 
over the next five years.\9\ A sharp rise in interest rates 
would force businesses to curb investment. They would cut the 
amount they spent on equipment and plant development--which 
workers need to earn higher wages. Over time, lower investment 
would depress wage growth, as productivity slowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\``The Untold Story of America's Debt,'' Deloitte LLP, June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A debt crisis would also mean higher taxes. If current 
federal interest payments were allotted to taxpayers, they 
would equal about $255 per month, according to Deloitte LLP. 
Under Deloitte's alternative scenario, that amount would jump 
to $424 for each taxpayer over the next decade.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, a debt crisis would hurt the most vulnerable worst 
of all. During the financial crisis, the federal government was 
able to borrow money to finance higher spending for 
unemployment insurance, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other 
programs that assist low-income families. In a debt crisis, 
however, the government would be unable to provide that 
assistance.
    We do not need to look far for examples of a debt crisis in 
action. There are examples in the United States, where 
municipalities have gone bankrupt and been unable to provide 
basic services. In Central Falls, Rhode Island, for instance, 
retirees' pensions have been slashed by up to 55 percent.\11\ 
In Stockton, California, the city has laid off 25 percent of 
its police force in the face of increasing pension costs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Bidgood, Jess. ``Plan to End Bankruptcy in Rhode Island City 
Gains Approval.'' New York Times. 6 September 2012.
    \12\Gonzales, Richard. ``An Example to Avoid: City of Stockton on 
the Brink.'' NPR. 11 March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Millions of Americans--the elderly, the handicapped, the 
poor--depend on assistance from the federal government. If we 
had a debt crisis, we wouldn't be able to keep our promises to 
these families.

                    The Solution: A Balanced Budget

    The greatest threat is inaction. Allowing the status quo of 
uncontrolled spending and ever rising a debt invites a debt 
crisis. The federal government can avoid that outcome by taking 
steps to get its fiscal house in order. That is why this budget 
achieves balance within the next ten years. It does so with 
emphasis on six areas. It expands opportunity by growing our 
economy. It strengthens the safety net by retooling federal 
aid. It secures seniors' retirement by reforming entitlements. 
It restores fair play to the marketplace by ending cronyism. It 
keeps our country safe by rebuilding our military. And it ends 
Washington's culture of reckless spending.

                        1. Opportunity Expanded

    This budget offers a plan to expand opportunity. While not 
sufficient by themselves, policy reforms at the federal level 
can help foster an environment that expands opportunity. This 
budget seeks to equip Americans with the skills to succeed in a 
21st-century economy and to grow that economy through long-
overdue tax reform. Both reforms work off the same principle: 
The American people know their needs better than bureaucrats 
thousands of miles away.
Higher education and job-training in brief
     Encourage policies that promote innovation.
     Adopt a sustainable maximum-award level for Pell.
     Ensure aid for higher education is targeted to the 
truly needy.
     Eliminate ineffective and duplicative federal 
education programs.
     Consolidate job-training programs, based on 
reforms in the SKILLS Act, and provide for a career-scholarship 
fund.
Tax reform in brief
     Simplify the tax code to make it fairer to 
American families and businesses.
     Reduce the amount of time and resources necessary 
to comply with tax laws.
     Substantially lower tax rates for individuals, 
with a goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25 percent.
     Consolidate the current seven individual-income-
tax brackets into two brackets with a first bracket of 10 
percent.
     Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
     Reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent.
     Transition the tax code to a more competitive 
system of international taxation.

                       2. Safety Net Strengthened

    This budget applies the lessons of welfare reform to all 
federal-aid programs. It gives states more flexibility to 
tailor programs to their people's needs. It gives those closest 
to the people better tools so they can root out waste, fraud, 
and abuse. Finally, it empowers recipients to get off the aid 
rolls and back on the payroll. By enlisting states in the fight 
against poverty, this budget builds a partnership between the 
federal government and our communities.

Health care in brief

     Provide states flexibility on Medicaid.
     Repeal the health-care law's expansion of 
Medicaid.
     Repeal the health-care law's exchange subsidies.

Welfare reform in brief

     Allow states to customize SNAP to address the 
needs unique to their citizens.
     Address barriers to upward mobility.
     Reinstitute welfare's work requirements.

                         3. Retirement Secured

    This budget protects and strengthens Medicare for current 
and future generations. It also requires the President and 
Congress to work together to forge a solution for Social 
Security. This budget recognizes that the federal government 
must keep its word to current and future seniors. And to do 
that, it must reform these programs.

Medicare in brief

     Preserve Medicare for those in or near retirement.
     Reform Medicare for younger generations.
     End the raid on the Medicare Trust Fund.
     Repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
     Reform the medical-liability system.
     Means-test premiums for high-income seniors.

Social Security in brief

     Require the President to submit a plan to shore up 
the Social Security Trust Fund.
     Require Congress to submit a plan of its own.

Federal-workforce retirement in brief

     Reform civil-service pensions.
     Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

                          4. Fairness Restored

    The administration's uncontrolled, wasteful spending in 
combination with an overzealous regulatory agenda has weakened 
an anemic economy and created barriers to job creation, 
especially for small businesses. To restore fairness--and 
vitality--to our economy, this budget ends cronyism; eliminates 
waste, fraud, and abuse; and returns the federal government to 
its proper sphere of activity.

Energy in brief

     Restore competition to the energy sector with the 
goal of energy independence.
     Unlock America's vast energy resources in an 
environmentally responsible manner.
     Stop the government from buying up unnecessary 
land.

Housing in brief

     Wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
     Accurately account for trillions in federal loans 
and guarantees.

Financial services in brief

     Revisit flawed financial regulations.

Health care in brief

     Repeal the President's health-care law.
     Move toward patient-centered reform.

Cutting spending in brief

     Cap spending.
     Eliminate waste.

                         5. A Nation Protected

    The first job of the federal government is to secure the 
safety of its citizens from threats at home and abroad. Whether 
defeating the terrorists who attacked this country on September 
11, 2001, deterring the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, or battling insurgents who would harbor terrorist 
networks that threaten Americans' lives, the men and women of 
the United States' military have performed superbly. This 
budget provides the best equipment, training, and compensation 
for their continued success. It also keeps faith with the 
veterans who have served and protected the nation.

Defense in brief

     Provide $579.2 billion in defense spending for 
fiscal year 2014, an amount consistent with America's military 
goals and strategies.
     Fully fund our nation's commitment to veterans.

                      6. A Budget Process Reformed

    When it comes to fixing the broken budget process, the 
choice facing Americans could not be clearer: The President and 
his party's leaders have failed to meet their budgetary 
responsibilities. The President has failed to submit his budget 
by the statutory deadline in four of the past five years. It 
appears his budget will be two months late, the latest 
submission by a President since the statutory requirement to 
submit a budget was enacted nearly 100 years ago. The Senate 
has failed to pass a budget in four years.
    By contrast, the Republican majority in the House has met 
its legal and moral obligation by passing a bold budget that 
tackles America's most pressing fiscal challenges. Last 
Congress, the House Budget Committee authored and advanced 
several statutory reforms to bring more accountability to the 
federal budget process. This budget continues in the spirit of 
those proposed reforms, which the Committee will again pursue 
after this resolution has been adopted by the House.

Budget reform in brief

     Extend the Budget Control Act's federal spending 
caps through the end of the budget window.
     Create a budget point of order against legislation 
that increases net mandatory spending beyond the ten-year 
window, a limitation that can help check Congressional appetite 
to create costly open-ended entitlement programs.
     Close the loophole that allows discretionary 
limits to be circumvented through advance appropriations.
     Require that the costs of legislation related to 
housing be calculated on a fair-value basis and authorize the 
use of fair-value-costs estimates for other credit programs.
     Call on congressional committees to regularly 
review programs for waste, fraud, and abuse.

           *         *         *         *         *

    By submitting this budget resolution, the House Budget 
Committee has fulfilled its responsibility--a full month before 
the April 15 deadline for completion of the budget resolution 
by Congress. The budget resolution is the only legislation that 
views the federal government as a whole. As such, it serves 
many functions: It resolves conflicting judgments about our 
national priorities. And it reconciles divergent views of our 
country's future. Ultimately, the budget is more than a list of 
numbers. It's an expression of our governing philosophy. The 
Committee on the Budget will again complete its budget on 
time--in recognition of the need for transparent government. 
And it will do so with great purpose: to provide for the 
orderly execution of Congress's duties and to restore the 
promise of this exceptional nation.



             ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

                              ----------                              


                     The Current Economic Situation

    Real gross domestic product was virtually flat in the 
fourth quarter of 2012, increasing by just 0.1 percent, 
according to preliminary estimates. That represented a sharp 
slowdown from the 3.1 percent increase posted in the third 
quarter. Although many economists attribute this recent 
slowdown to temporary factors, economic growth remains 
sluggish, nearly four years after the recession officially 
ended. For all of 2012, real GDP grew by 2.2 percent on a year-
over-year basis, representing the seventh straight year of 
growth below the 3 percent mark. (The trend rate of real GDP 
growth over time in the U.S. has been roughly 3 percent.)
    The outlook for 2013 calls for moderate, though sub-par, 
economic growth. The Blue Chip consensus expects just 1.9 
percent real growth next year. Among the expected drags to 
growth this year are increased taxes resulting both from the 
fiscal-cliff deal as well as scheduled tax hikes associated 
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; a sharp 
rise in gasoline prices that could weigh on consumer spending; 
and subdued export growth due to continued weakness abroad. 
Among the positive factors supporting growth going forward are 
strength in residential investment, a rebound in business 
inventories, and gains in business investment. The Blue Chip 
consensus sees real GDP growth picking up to a healthier pace--
2.8 percent--in 2014.
    Total payroll employment increased by a robust 236,000 in 
February, well above market expectations. That represented a 
higher rate of employment growth than the 183,000-per-month 
average posted in 2012. The unemployment rate also declined 
from 7.9 to 7.7 percent. It was an improvement, but the last 
time unemployment was that high was 29 years ago, and that was 
on the heels of a deep recession. Moreover, the decline in the 
unemployment rate was partly due to people leaving the labor 
force. A broader gage of underemployment--which includes people 
who have stopped looking for work or who cannot find full-time 
jobs--is still above 14 percent. In addition, the labor-force-
participation rate ticked down in February from 63.6 to 63.5 
percent, the lowest level in over 30 years.
    After suffering an unprecedented decline during the 
financial crisis, the U.S. housing market is gradually 
improving. Over the past four years, home prices have made some 
gains since dropping to a very low level. In the fourth quarter 
of 2012, for instance, national average home prices were up 
over 7 percent from year-before levels. The pace of residential 
investment is also set to improve. The Blue Chip consensus 
expects housing starts to reach 990,000 units this year. 
Although that level is not particularly high by historical 
standards, it would represent a 27 percent increase from 2012 
levels.
    Crude-oil prices have risen lately and are flirting with 
the $100-per-barrel mark, which is causing higher prices at the 
pump. Since the start of the year, the average price of retail 
gasoline in the U.S. has risen by $0.50 (or 14 percent) to 
$3.85 per gallon. Analysts point out that gas prices will 
likely continue to rise through the spring and summer months, 
which could dampen consumer spending.
    Despite the rise in energy prices, the Federal Reserve 
notes that inflation levels remain low. The Fed's preferred 
inflation gage--the price index for personal-consumption 
expenditures--rose at an annual rate of just 1.5 percent in the 
latter half of 2012. Looking ahead, the Fed believes that 
overall inflation levels over the medium term will run ``at or 
below'' its 2 percent objective.
    With a sub-par labor market and inflation running slightly 
below levels that it believes are consistent with its mandate, 
the Fed has been engaged in a ``highly accommodative monetary 
policy''--to quote Chairman Ben Bernanke--to support the 
economy. For instance, at its December Federal Open Market 
Committee meeting, the Fed provided more explicit policy 
guidance on how it is likely to change interest rates in 
response to economic conditions. The Fed essentially said that 
exceptionally low interest rates will likely be required as 
long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5 percent and 
expected medium-term inflation runs no more than half a 
percentage point above the FOMC's 2 percent long-run goal. In 
addition to assuring markets that the federal funds rate will 
likely be low for an extended period of time, the Fed is making 
regular, large-scale purchases of both mortgage-backed 
securities and Treasury securities to put downward pressure on 
long-term interest rates. The Fed is purchasing roughly $85 
billion in securities ($40 billion in MBS and $45 billion in 
long-term Treasuries) per month, or more than $1 trillion per 
year in so-called quantitative easing.
    The yield on the ten-year Treasury has ticked higher in 
recent months, though it still was just below the 2 percent 
mark as of late February, which is extremely low by historical 
standards. The low level of Treasury yields is partly a 
function of the Fed's extremely accommodative monetary policy 
as well as the ``flight to quality'' among global credit 
investors seeking a relatively risk-free haven in the storm of 
ongoing financial crises, particularly in Europe.
    The stock market has continued to make impressive gains. As 
of late February, the S&P 500 was up over 10 percent from year-
before levels and had doubled from its crisis low point in the 
middle of 2009. Since then, the Federal Reserve's large-scale 
asset purchases have lowered bond yields, and they likely have 
been a contributing factor in boosting equity prices in recent 
years, as investors have moved into stocks and out of lower-
yielding bonds. These strong market gains may taper off as 
analysts expect company-profit growth to slow over the year 
ahead.

                          The Economic Outlook

    Economic projections from the CBO and private forecasters 
generally predict just modest economic growth in 2013, though 
the pace of growth is expected to pick up in subsequent years. 
The President's budget, which was due on February 4, includes 
an economic forecast and is usually accompanied by the Economic 
Report of the President, but the administration has yet to 
submit its FY 2014 budget.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The law requires the President to submit his budget no later 
than the first Monday in February, which fell on February 4 this year. 
The Economic Report of the President is due within ten days of the 
President's budget submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO expects real GDP growth, measured on a year-over-year 
basis, of just 1.4 percent this year, slightly below the 
current private-sector forecast of 1.9 percent. Both forecasts 
show growth picking up in 2014 to the 2.5-3 percent range, but 
the predictions differ more sharply over the medium term. For 
instance, CBO expects growth in the middle part of the decade 
to be around 4 percent. That would mark the best string of 
annual growth rates since the latter part of the 1990s. By 
contrast, the private-sector Blue Chip forecast is more subdued 
over the medium term, predicting annual growth at or slightly 
below the 3 percent mark.
    Both forecasts predict the unemployment rate will decline 
slowly from its current elevated level. CBO does not see the 
unemployment rate dipping below the 7 percent mark until the 
latter part of 2015. It doesn't see the unemployment rate 
falling back to the pre-recession, pre--financial crisis range 
of just over 5 percent until the latter part of the decade.
    As the economy recovers, the forecasts predict that 
interest rates will gradually move higher. According to CBO, 
the ten-year Treasury rate, which has been hovering at an all-
time low between 1.5 and 2 percent, will rise back above 4 
percent in 2016 and 5 percent in the latter part of the decade. 
The Blue Chip consensus expects slightly lower interest rates, 
on average, over the medium and longer term.
    Rates of inflation are also expected to normalize in the 
coming years from their current low levels. CBO expects just a 
1.6 percent increase in prices in 2013. That rate of inflation 
is expected to rise back above 2 percent in the middle and 
latter part of the decade. For the most part, the Blue Chip 
consensus expects a slightly higher rate of inflation than CBO 
does throughout the ten-year budget window.
    CBO's annual economic assumptions were adopted for use in 
the budget resolution and are shown in Table 7.
    As noted earlier, interest rates will gradually rise from 
their historically low levels as the economy recovers. That 
rise in interest rates, combined with the large stock of debt 
we are carrying, will mean that net interest payments will 
become a significant part of overall government spending later 
in the decade. This increase is a function of debt levels that 
are expected to rise in the future as a share of the economy. 
As a result, debt-service costs absorb an increasing share of 
national income, and the country must borrow an increasing 
amount each year both to fund its ongoing services and to make 
good on its previous debt commitments.
    Because of this growing debt burden and a projection that 
interest rates will not remain abnormally low, CBO projects 
that the fastest-growing category of the federal budget is net 
interest expense. In nominal terms, net interest spending rises 
from $224 billion in FY 2013 to $857 billion in 2023. During 
the same period, it rises from 1.4 percent of GDP today to 3.3 
percent of GDP in 2023.
    Debt as a share of GDP will rise from 72.5 percent to 77 
percent at the end of the budget window. Economists caution 
that government leverage in excess of about 60 percent of the 
economy is not sustainable for an extended period of time. When 
debt is growing faster than a country's economy indefinitely, 
that country's budget is on an unsustainable course, and it 
accelerates over time to a crisis situation. Federal debt as a 
burden on the economy has doubled in the past five years. This 
higher debt burden and projections that it will continue to 
rise will place an increasing drag on the economy, raise the 
risk of a fiscal crisis, and limit the federal government's 
capacity to respond to events.
    CBO completed a study last month, entitled ``Macroeconomic 
Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,'' which illustrated the 
economic impact of both smaller and larger deficits compared to 
the current trajectory. CBO examined three alternative budget 
paths: 1) a deficit increase of $2 trillion over the next 
decade compared to current law; 2) a deficit reduction of $2 
trillion; and 3) a deficit reduction of $4 trillion. The study 
concluded that reducing budget deficits is a net positive for 
economic growth over time. Likewise, increasing budget deficits 
is a net negative for economic growth over time. There is a 
distinction between CBO's short-term and long-term effects from 
these various budget paths. CBO's short-term economic models 
are driven mainly by demand-side factors, and they show a 
slight reduction in economic growth over the near term from 
reducing the deficit. Similarly, the models show a temporary 
increase in economic output over the near term from an increase 
in deficits. Over the longer term, however, these results flip. 
For instance, according to CBO, a $4 trillion deficit-reduction 
package would reduce economic output by about 0.6 percent over 
the short-term, but it would increase output by a much larger 
amount--that is, by 1.7 percent--over the longer term, meaning 
after 2017. The logic is that deficit reduction creates long-
term benefits because it increases the pool of national savings 
and boosts investment, thereby raising economic growth and job 
creation. In terms of what that higher long-term growth might 
mean to the budget, CBO estimates that the economic benefit of 
a $4 trillion deficit-reduction package (i.e., an increase in 
the budget surplus or a decrease in the budget deficit) would 
equal about $82 billion in deficit reduction in 2023.



                   FUNCTION-BY-FUNCTION PRESENTATION

                              ----------                              


                     FUNCTION 050: NATIONAL DEFENSE

                            Function Summary

    The first job of the federal government is securing the 
safety and liberty of its citizens from threats at home and 
abroad. Whether defeating the terrorists who attacked this 
country on September 11, 2001, deterring the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction, or battling insurgents who would 
harbor terrorist networks that threaten Americans' lives and 
livelihoods, the men and women of the United States' military 
have performed superbly. As reflected in the National Defense 
function, this budget provides for the best equipment, 
training, and compensation for their continued success.
    National Defense includes funds to compensate, train, 
maintain, and equip the military forces of the United States. 
More than 95 percent of the funding in this function goes to 
Department of Defense military activities. The remainder funds 
the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of 
Energy, and other defense-related activities (primarily in 
connection with homeland security).
    Funding for the Department of Defense's non-enduring 
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq is carried in Function 970 
rather than in this function.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $560.2 billion in budget authority 
and $579.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that 
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $552.0 
billion in budget authority and $571.0 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $8.2 billion in budget authority 
and $8.2 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $6.2 trillion and $6.0 trillion, 
respectively.
    Over the last four years, the Department of Defense has 
repeatedly revised downward its estimates of the budgetary 
resources necessary to meet the nation's security needs. Most 
recently, then-Secretary Leon Panetta reduced defense-spending 
plans by $487 billion over ten years and contemporaneously 
announced a defense strategy designed to live within that 
reduced budget. The key aspects of this revised defense program 
are a so-called ``strategic pivot'' to the Asia--Pacific region 
(emphasizing U.S. air and naval capabilities); a reduction in 
military end-strength of 103,000 troops (primarily from the 
ground forces); shrinking the planned naval fleet below the 
long-held 313-ship benchmark; two new rounds of base closures 
and realignments; and military-compensation reforms. In 
announcing this defense program, Secretary Panetta made clear 
that ``the bottom line is that there is little room here for a 
significant modification if we want to preserve the force and 
the capabilities that we believe we need in order to protect 
the country and the fully assigned missions that we have to 
deal with.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Leon Panetta, ``Major Budget Decisions Briefing from the 
Pentagon,'' 26 January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsequent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of 
the administration's budget request found that it underfunded 
the defense program by 5 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Congressional Budget Office, ``Long-Term Implications of the 
2013 Future Years Defense Program,'' July 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The automatic-enforcement procedures of the Budget Control 
Act compound the challenge of maintaining the nation's 
security, mandating just under a half trillion dollars in 
additional reductions in planned defense budgets. Unless 
legislation is enacted, this will result in nearly $1 trillion 
in total reductions in planned defense spending relative to the 
defense program put forward by then-Secretary Robert Gates in 
2011. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin 
Dempsey recently testified that ``our current security 
challenges are more formidable and complex than those we faced 
in downturns following war in Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War. 
There is no foreseeable `peace dividend' on our horizon. The 
security environment is increasingly competitive and 
dangerous.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\General Martin Dempsey, Testimony to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, 12 February 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this ``increasingly competitive and dangerous'' 
environment, this budget assumes a level of defense spending 
consistent with the administration's estimate of the budgetary 
resources needed to execute its chosen defense strategy. While 
this is significantly less than the levels in previous budget 
resolutions passed by the House, it is approximately $500 
billion more than will be available absent changes in the 
Budget Control Act.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Supporting Our Men and Women in Uniform. Military personnel 
costs have grown 27 percent in real terms since 2001 and now 
consume almost one-third of the base budget for the Department 
of Defense. Maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer military 
requires robust compensation, while the dangers and stresses of 
military life justify a premium when compared to federal 
civilian pay. However, given the explosive growth in 
compensation costs, the possibilities for reform must be 
examined. The Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission established in the FY 2013 National 
Defense Authorization Act is charged with developing 
recommendations that (1) ensure the long-term viability of the 
all-volunteer force; (2) enable a high quality of life for 
military families; and (3) modernize and achieve fiscal 
sustainability of the compensation and retirement systems.\4\ 
In future years, serious consideration should be given to the 
Commission's recommendations if this defense program is going 
to be achievable within existing budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Title VI, Subtitle H of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, P.L. 112-239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Modernization Challenge. A decade of war and years of 
delayed and failed acquisition programs have resulted in an 
impending need to simultaneously procure replacements for a 
range of weapons systems in each of the services. For example, 
the services have programs in place to begin replacing during 
this budget window: (1) the air-superiority and strike-aircraft 
fleets of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps; (2) the Army's 
ground-combat vehicle fleet; (3) a substantial share of the 
Navy's surface combatants; and (4) the bomber and submarine 
legs of the nation's nuclear-deterrent force. These programs 
represent only some of the more prominent defense capabilities 
that will make claims on the defense-acquisition budget within 
the budget window.
    Compounding the fiscal challenge this procurement-bow wave 
presents is the reality that defense acquisition has 
consistently exceeded planned budgets. GAO reports that in 
2011, the cost of the portfolio of DOD's major-acquisition 
programs increased by 5 percent in real terms in just one 
year.\5\ This is consistent with the long-term trend, such that 
the CBO has estimated that DOD's identified acquisition needs 
will cost 10 percent more than was included in the President's 
most recent budget request.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Government Accountability Office, ``Defense Acquisitions: 
Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs,'' March 2012.
    \6\CBO, Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is too early to determine the results of the 2009 Weapon 
Systems Acquisition Reform Act and subsequent reforms, but it 
is unlikely these reforms will in themselves be adequate to 
fully resolve the mismatch between planned acquisitions and 
likely available budgetary resources. Improving the 
affordability of defense acquisitions will be an ongoing 
challenge that merits continued congressional oversight.
    Improving Defense Efficiency. The Department of Defense, 
like all government agencies, has a responsibility to the 
taxpayer to responsibly manage the resources available to it. 
The inability of the Defense Department to receive a clean 
audit calls into question whether DOD is fulfilling this 
responsibility. Although the Department hopes to have its 
statement of budgetary resources auditable by the end of fiscal 
year 2014, full auditability is not expected until the end of 
fiscal year 2017. Continued progress here and with the 
Department's other efforts to reduce waste and bureaucracy will 
be needed in order to make the defense program affordable.

                  FUNCTION 150: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The international-affairs budget is critical in advancing 
U.S. strategic priorities and interests, especially those 
relating to economic opportunities, national security, and 
American values. This function includes the U.S. government's 
spending for the following: international development, food 
security, and humanitarian assistance; international security 
assistance; the conduct of foreign affairs; foreign-information 
and exchange activities; and international financial programs. 
The primary agencies responsible for executing these programs 
are the Departments of Agriculture, State, and Treasury, the 
United States Agency for International Development, and the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
    Since 2003, funding for the international-affairs budget 
has grown exponentially, increasing by123 percent. 
Unfortunately, the growth in spending is not reflected in a 
comparable growth in results. Duplicative programs, programs 
unrelated to the core missions of Function 150, and 
inefficiencies are prevalent in the budget and need to be 
addressed. This budget reflects a thorough re-evaluation of 
accounts in Function 150 and prioritizes programs that are both 
integral to the core budget and that effectively and 
efficiently achieve desired results.
    Funding for the State Department and USAID's interim 
civilian activities for efforts relating to the global war on 
terrorism is reflected in Function 970 rather than in this 
account. These activities are also known as Overseas 
Contingency Operations, and are primarily executed in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $41.0 billion in budget authority 
and $42.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that 
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $38.7 
billion in budget authority and $43.0 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $2.3 billion in budget authority 
and -$1.0 billion in outlays. (The negative outlay figure 
reflects receipts from foreign-military sales and foreign-
military-financing transactions). The ten-year totals for 
budget authority and outlays are $430.6 billion and $413.2 
billion, respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Below are options committees of jurisdiction may wish to 
consider when making final policy and funding decisions.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Eliminate Contributions to Clean Technology Fund and 
Strategic Climate Fund. The Clean Technology and Strategic 
Climate Funds were created by the Obama administration in 2010. 
They support energy-efficient technologies intended to reduce 
energy use and prevent climate change. Given the record-high 
levels of deficits, the explosive growth in U.S. government 
debt, and the heavy reliance on foreign financing, the federal 
government is borrowing funds abroad to provide financial 
assistance in this area, which is not a core U.S. foreign-
policy function. In addition, the government should not attempt 
to pick winners and losers in terms of which technologies and 
companies to favor and advance abroad. Therefore, the Committee 
assumes elimination of both programs.
    Reduce Education Exchange Programs. Function 150 includes 
two education-exchange accounts intended to encourage mutual 
understanding between Americans and citizens around the world 
through scholarship and leadership programs: Educational and 
Cultural Exchange Programs and the Open World Leadership 
Center. Although this mission is laudable, exchange programs 
are a non-essential component of the foreign-affairs budget and 
should be reduced accordingly.
    Reduce Contributions to International Organizations and 
Programs. The United States makes voluntary contributions to 
several multilateral organizations and programs. These 
contributions are duplicative of funding provided in the 
Contribution to International Organizations account, which 
includes the obligatory payments to international organizations 
with which the United States has signed treaties. Although this 
budget fully funds the CIO account, it does not support 
voluntary contributions to the duplicative International 
Organizations and Programs account.
    Eliminate Funding for Peripheral Foreign-Affairs 
Institutions. The United States funds multiple independent 
agencies and quasi-private institutions through the foreign-
affairs budget. Included in this list are the Inter-American 
Foundation, the African Development Foundation, the East-West 
Center, the Asia Foundation, and the Center for Middle Eastern-
Western Dialogue. These institutions all engage in activities 
that are redundant of the State Department and USAID 
activities. Consolidating and eliminating funding for multiple 
institutions that perform similar tasks will make U.S. 
engagement with the world more efficient and cost-effective. 
Further, some of these organizations already receive private 
funding, and could continue on with non-government funds.
    Task MCC as Lead Agency on Foreign-Development Assistance. 
The United States has two primary foreign-development 
assistance programs: USAID's Development Assistance program and 
the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Investing in foreign aid 
and assisting other nations rise toward prosperity keeps the 
United States safe and strengthens the economy by establishing 
new trading partners and markets. However, development 
assistance is worthwhile only if it produces results for aid 
recipients.
    America's experience with having two development-assistance 
programs has shown that MCC's model has been more effective in 
achieving results. MCC's emphasis on outputs rather than inputs 
needs to be the foundation of all U.S. development-assistance 
programs. Other elements of MCC's model that should be extended 
throughout U.S. development-assistance programs include:
           strict requirements on recipient countries 
        to prove strong commitments to good governance, 
        economic freedom, and investment in their citizens in 
        order to be considered for aid;
           willingness of the U.S. government to 
        terminate assistance if an aid recipient starts 
        slipping on these critical commitments;
           country ownership, which requires the 
        country to plan its own aid projects and lead 
        implementation; and
           strict timelines for aid projects.
    These principles are critical to ensuring the long-term 
sustainability of projects once U.S. assistance concludes, thus 
avoiding the creation of a culture of dependency on U.S. aid. 
Further, MCC's model is resulting in the ``MCC Effect,'' where 
countries are independently making reforms in favor of good 
governance, economic freedom, and other MCC requirements, in 
order to qualify for a compact. In 2010, USAID announced a 
reform agenda, USAID Forward, and claims to be in the process 
of adopting more accountable policy standards, country 
ownership, and timetables. But success remains elusive. MCC's 
model is more effective and efficient in delivering foreign 
aid. And it results in the most benefits for the taxpayer 
dollar. For these reasons, this budget proposes MCC to be the 
lead agency on foreign-development assistance.
    Eliminate Complex Crises Fund. Established in 2010 to 
support stabilization activities and conflict prevention in 
countries demonstrating high risks of insecurity, the CCF has 
never been authorized by the committee of jurisdiction and is 
duplicative of the missions performed by the recently re-
organized Bureau of Conflict Stabilizations at the State 
Department. The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations 
is similarly responsible for developing a civilian capacity to 
prevent and counter crises in nations where security issues are 
of high concern. Due to mission overlap, eliminating the CCF 
and allowing the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization 
Operations to lead conflict prevention efforts are recommended.
    Diplomatic Security. Although this budget does not assume 
any savings from either the State Department's Diplomatic 
Consular Programs or its Embassy Security, Construction, and 
Maintenance accounts, there is concern regarding State 
Department's prioritization of resources. The tragedy at the 
U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya was not due to 
budget constraints, but its consequences were exacerbated by 
poor management by the State Department. Protecting American 
officials and facilities overseas should be a top priority for 
the State Department, and yet State has demonstrated different 
priorities in its funding decisions:
      1. In 2012, while requests for additional security to 
Benghazi were denied by the State Department, the U.S. Embassy 
in Vienna received a new charging station for its Chevy Volts 
(electric cars), to combat climate change. The charging station 
cost $100,000.
      2. Staffing levels at U.S. posts around the world seem 
inconsistent with the level of need. As of December 2011, 
according to State, there were 44 federally funded positions in 
the Bahamas, 55 in Barbados, 60 in Jamaica, 140 in Australia, 
209 in Belgium, 170 in Canada, 167 in France, 509 in Germany, 
145 in Switzerland, and 331 in the United Kingdom.
    Both of these examples highlight a misallocation of 
resources by the State Department during a time of fiscal 
constraint. This budget recommends that the State Department 
re-prioritize its resources and eliminate wasteful spending.

          FUNCTION 250: GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The largest component of this function--about half of total 
spending--is for the space-flight, research, and supporting 
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. The function also contains general science 
funding, including the budgets for the National Science 
Foundation and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $27.7 billion in budget authority 
and $27.8 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that 
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $27.6 
billion in budget authority and $27.7 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $100 million in budget authority 
and $105 million in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $307.7 billion and $303.5 billion, 
respectively.
    The budget reduces excess and unnecessary spending, while 
supporting core government responsibilities. The resolution 
preserves basic research, providing stable funding for NSF to 
conduct its authorized activities in science, space and 
technology basic research, development, and STEM education. The 
budget provides continued support for NASA and recognizes the 
vital strategic importance of the United States' remaining the 
pre-eminent space-faring nation. This budget aligns funding in 
accordance with the NASA authorization and its specified 
spending limits to support robust space capability, to allow 
for exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and to support our 
scientific as well as educational base.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    The committees of jurisdiction will determine policies to 
align with the spending levels in the resolution. The options 
below are offered as illustrations of the kinds of proposals 
that can help meet the budget's fiscal guidelines.
    Restore Core Government Responsibilities. Spending for the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science includes some areas, 
such as biological and environmental research, that could 
potentially crowd out private investment. The resolution levels 
support preserving the Office of Science's original role as a 
venue for groundbreaking scientific discoveries and a driver of 
innovation and economic growth, while responsibly paring back 
applied and commercial research and development.
    Reduce Expenses for the DHS's Directorate of Science and 
Technology. The committee recommends reductions in management 
and administrative expenses for the Department of Homeland 
Security's Directorate of Science and Technology, while 
shifting funding resources to frontline missions and 
capabilities.
                          FUNCTION 270: ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This category includes the civilian energy and 
environmental programs of the Department of Energy. Function 
270 also includes the Rural Utilities Service of the Department 
of Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. It does not include DOE's national-security 
activities--the National Nuclear Security Administration--which 
are in Function 050, or its basic research and science 
activities, which are in Function 250.
    The administration continues to penalize economically 
competitive sources of energy and to reward their uncompetitive 
alternatives. In its 2013 report, the Congressional Budget 
Office found total federal support for the development and 
production of fuels and energy technologies--including both tax 
expenditures and federal spending--totaled $20 billion, of 
which ``half was directed toward energy efficiency and 
renewable energy, 22 percent for nuclear energy, and 15 percent 
for fossil energy.''1,}2 The White House provided 
over six times the subsidies for these ``green energy'' 
programs, which the Energy Information Administration says also 
produced the smallest amounts of energy.\3\ And the 
administration refuses to answer for almost $16 billion spent 
on ``stimulus'' grants--almost a quarter of them to European 
and Asian renewable-energy companies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Terry Dinan, ``CBO Testifies on Federal Financial Support for 
Fuels and Energy Technologies,'' Congressional Budget Office, 13 March 
2013.
    \2\Congressional Budget Office, ``How Much Does the Federal 
Government Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy 
Technologies,'' 6 March 2012.
    \3\Energy Information Administration, ``Direct Federal Financial 
Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010,'' July 2011.
    \4\House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``American Taxpayer 
Investment, Foreign Corporation Benefit,'' 17 January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many of the administration's loan-guarantee projects have 
failed: Abound Solar, which received $400 million in loan 
guarantees, was cited by the Colorado Department of Public 
Health and Environment for hazardous waste left from their 
failed solar panels.\5\ Another bankrupt grant recipient, A123, 
intends to hand out as much as $4.2 million bonuses to top 
executives as the company's assets are sold off.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Sandoval, Michael, ``Bankrupt Abound Solar to Bury Unused Solar 
Panels in Cement.'' Heritage Foundation. 26 February 2013.
    \6\Institute for Energy Research, ``DOE Spends Taxpayers Money 
While A123 Goes Bankrupt,'' 20 November 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President has installed a heavy-handed compliance 
culture dependent on regulations, favorable tax treatment, and 
spending on administration-favored constituencies. This 
administration has proposed more ``economically significant'' 
regulations in four years than previous administrations have in 
the past 15 years combined. Since 2011, the White House has 
generated over $294 billion in regulatory activity--and $215.9 
billion in 2012 alone. Since the start of the administration, 
the regulatory cost burden has increased more than $520 
billion. Regulations have cost people and small businesses some 
$1.75 trillion per year, according to a report from the Small 
Business Administration, including $281 billion for 
environmental regulations that disproportionately hit small 
businesses.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of Regulatory 
Costs on Small Firms,'' Small Business Research Survey, September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All energy sources should be developed without undue 
government interference. However, the administration continues 
to play the referee in picking winners and losers in the 
market, and crowding out the private sector. Its officials have 
promoted changes to explicitly raise energy costs. In 2008, 
Steven Chu, who later became the Secretary of Energy for the 
administration, said, ``Somehow we have to figure out how to 
boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Then-
candidate Barack Obama agreed, arguing in January of 2008: 
``Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates 
would necessarily skyrocket.''
    In an effort to make green energy more viable, the 
administration is trying to make fossil fuels more expensive. 
This was the idea behind the controversial ``cap and trade'' 
bill that President Obama tried and failed to pass through 
Congress in 2009, which would have established an elaborate 
bureaucratic structure for taxing and rationing conventional 
energy sources. But instead of accepting this verdict on its 
preferred policy, the administration continued to pursue its 
climate initiatives by supporting the Environmental Protection 
Agency's unilateral plan to impose emissions restrictions on 
American businesses and consumers. In his last State of the 
Union address, the President warned Congress if it did not pass 
a cap-and-trade bill, he would regulate emissions via executive 
fiat. The EPA is poised to make good on the President's threat 
by abusing the powers granted in current law.
    The results of misguided administration policies are clear 
to see. According to the Department of Energy's Energy 
Information Administration, gasoline prices averaged $3.68 a 
gallon in 2012, the most expensive annual average according to 
its data. That works out to $2,912 in average household 
gasoline expenditures. The 2011 average was the second highest 
at $3.58 a gallon. The administration has created additional 
barriers for needed capital investment and job creation by 
bypassing Congress and implementing regulations on its own. The 
result is an administration that is bypassing Congress, 
threatening high-wage jobs, increasing energy costs, and 
hurting families' pocketbooks.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $2.9 billion in budget authority 
and $5.5 billion in outlays in discretionary spending in fiscal 
year 2014. Mandatory spending in 2014 is -$4.1 billion in 
budget authority and -$4.1 billion in outlays. The negative 
balances reflect the incoming repayment of loans, receipts from 
the sale of electricity produced by federal entities, and 
charges for the disposal of nuclear waste. These proceeds 
offset spending in this function and result in this function 
displaying negative spending levels. The ten-year totals for 
budget authority and outlays are $33.3 billion and $36.5 
billion, respectively, for discretionary spending. The ten-year 
totals for budget authority and outlays are -$19.9 billion and 
-$22.3 billion, respectively, for mandatory spending.
    The current administration nearly doubled funding for the 
Department of Energy during the President's first term, 
excluding funding from the 2009 stimulus bill. The resolution 
reduces funding for non-core energy research, loan guarantees 
that subsidize corporations, and excess and unnecessary 
spending in the DOE's civilian accounts.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The committees of jurisdiction will determine the policies 
to align spending with the levels in the resolution. The 
options below are offered as illustrations of the kinds of 
proposals that can help meet the budget's fiscal guidelines.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Reduce Administrative Costs at DOE. The resolution supports 
streamlining and boosting accountability of vendor support and 
administrative costs across DOE's offices. The Government 
Accountability Office described the vendor selection and 
procurement process as decentralized and fragmented in the 
agency. This budget supports better governance and 
consolidation of contract management and procurement processes 
across functions to reduce costs.
    Scale Back Corporate Subsidies in the Energy Industry. The 
resolution provides sufficient funding for essential government 
missions, including energy security and basic research and 
development. It recommends paring back spending in areas of 
duplication and non-core functions, such as applied and 
commercial research and development projects best left to the 
private sector. The budget aims to roll back such federal 
intervention and corporate-welfare spending across energy 
sectors.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Rescind Unobligated Balances in DOE's Green Subsidies and 
Loan Portfolio. The budget recommends rescinding unobligated 
balances in DOE's loan portfolio. Since its introduction in the 
2009 stimulus bill, DOE has issued over $20 billion in new 
loans and loan guarantees for private-sector loans for 
renewable-energy projects that would not otherwise have been 
market-viable.
    The Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing program was 
intended to provide debt capital to domestic auto manufacturers 
to fund projects that help vehicles made in the United States 
meet higher-mileage requirements. However, the funds have 
largely been unused as production has not met current demand. 
Loan beneficiaries have included manufacturers shifting jobs 
overseas, such as Fisker, which provided over $500 million and 
ended up assembling cars in Finland.
    Moreover, Americans deserve the most honest, accurate 
assessment of how Washington spends their tax dollars. Yet the 
costs of DOE's loans are currently calculated using the 
inadequate methodology prescribed in the Federal Credit Reform 
Act. Under FCRA rules, government-backed loans are discounted 
at risk-free interest rates--the interest rates on U.S. 
Treasury securities. As CBO has stated and the White House's 
own independent analysis has acknowledged, by incorporating 
market-based risk premiums, fair-value estimates recognize the 
financial risks that the government assumes when issuing 
credit. The White House's independent report noted that these 
DOE loans may increase taxpayers' financial liability. It 
stated, ``If the eventual actual loss exceeds the Credit 
Subsidy Cost, that incremental loss is absorbed by the 
taxpayers.''
    Repeal Stimulus-Driven Borrowing Authority Specifically for 
Green Transmission. The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in 
the Western Area Power Administration's Transmission 
Infrastructure Program provides loans to develop new 
transmission systems aimed solely at integrating renewable 
energy. This authority was inserted into the stimulus bill 
without the opportunity for debate. Of most concern, the 
authority includes a bailout provision that would require 
American taxpayers to pay outstanding balances on projects that 
private developers fail to repay.
    Eliminates Oil and Gas Research and Development Program. 
The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other 
Petroleum Research Fund is primarily operated by a private-
sector consortium and duplicates efforts already made by the 
private investors. The resolution supports prioritizing federal 
funding and preventing federal subsidies for private 
corporations and who should rely on private investment.

            FUNCTION 300: NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The budget resolution recognizes the importance of Function 
300 activities--which include water resources, conservation, 
environmental, land management, and recreational programs--but 
bigger government has not equated to better government, and the 
increase in spending in this function has only invited 
mismanagement and duplication.
    The fiscal year 2014 budget resolution builds on last 
year's resolution and supports the nation's enduring energy-
policy priorities--economic prosperity, lower gasoline and 
energy prices, and greater domestic energy production--while 
moving toward market-based solutions for sustainable-energy 
sources. The resolution draws on the House Republicans' 
American Energy Initiative, which seeks to advance an all-of-
the-above energy approach for the United States.
    One of the President's very first initiatives was to cancel 
oil leases on onshore federal lands and to delay the offshore 
leasing plan. The administration's opposition to domestic 
drilling continued with a 2012-2017 Offshore Lease Plan 
Proposal that imposed the same moratorium that had been lifted 
in 2008. Production on federally controlled lands declined from 
2010 to 2011 by 14 percent and even with skyrocketing energy 
costs, the President refuses to approve the Keystone XL 
Pipeline project. The construction of the Keystone XL Energy 
Pipeline would create more than 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 
indirect jobs. If approved and constructed, the pipeline would 
contribute an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes to 
communities along the route during the life of the pipeline.
    The economic benefits of expanding oil and gas development 
on federal lands are well documented: According to recent 
studies, 500,000 new jobs a year in high-wage, high-skill 
employment sectors and GDP spill-over effects for $14.4 
trillion in cumulative increased economic activity would be 
generated over the next 30 years. But the federal government is 
standing in the way.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Dr. Joseph R Mason, ``Beyond the Congressional Budget Office: 
The Additional Economic Effects of Immediately Opening Federal Lands to 
Oil and Gas Leasing,'' Institute for Energy Research, February 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While U.S oil production is at its highest level in two 
decades, 100 percent of this increase is due to production on 
non-federal lands.\2\ Meanwhile, the federal government owns 
nearly one-third of the land in the country. That is an area 
roughly four times the area of the state of Texas. Substantial 
volumes of oil and gas are known to lie under these government 
lands. According to the Congressional Research Service, the 
U.S.'s combined recoverable natural-gas, oil, and coal 
endowment is the largest on earth--not Russia's, Saudi 
Arabia's, or China's. Our country has 163 billion barrels of 
recoverable oil and enough natural gas to meet the country's 
demand for 90 years.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``New [CRS] Report 
Chronicles Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Declining Under 
Obama's Watch,'' 5 March 2013.
    \3\Carl Behrens and Gene Whitney, ``U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: 
Terminology, Reporting and Summary,'' Congressional Research Service, 
30 November 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Natural Resources and Environment category consists of 
major departments and agencies such as the Department of the 
Interior, which includes the National Park Service, the Bureau 
of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service; conservation-oriented and land management 
agencies within the Department of Agriculture, including the 
Forest Service; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration in the Department of Commerce; the Army Corps of 
Engineers; and the Environmental Protection Agency. The 
discussion below elaborates on the budget resolution's 
recommended policies in these areas.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $38.1 billion in budget authority 
and $41.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2014 totals $33.5 billion, with $38.1 
billion in related outlays; mandatory spending is $4.6 billion 
in budget authority and $2.9 billion in outlays. Over ten 
years, budget authority totals $385.2 billion, and outlays are 
$399.9 billion.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The resolution focuses on paring back unnecessary spending 
being used to carry out overreaching regulatory expansion. This 
budget also emphasizes core government responsibilities, while 
reducing spending in areas of duplication or non-core 
functions. While the actual policies will be determined by the 
committees of jurisdiction, options to meet budget targets 
include those listed below.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Focus on Maintaining Existing Land Resources. Annual 
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund has typically 
ranged between $250 million and $450 million. The President's 
budget requested $257 million for fiscal year 2013, but this 
allocation cannot be used for maintenance. The federal 
government already is struggling with a maintenance backlog on 
the millions of acres it controls--a backlog totaling between 
$17 and $22 billion--but the administration is seeking to 
acquire even more land. This budget focuses on eliminating the 
maintenance backlog before moving to acquire additional lands.
    Streamline Climate-Change Activities across Government. 
This budget resolution reduces spending for government-wide 
climate change-related activities and recommends better 
coordination of programs and funds to eliminate duplicative and 
unnecessary spending.
    Streamline Fragmented and Overlapping Agency Programs. The 
resolution supports consolidating programs across federal 
agencies and reducing spending in areas identified by the 
Government Accountability Office, and bipartisan deficit-
reduction commissions. GAO identified 14 fragmented programs at 
Energy, Transportation, and EPA, whose missions cover reducing 
mobile-source diesel emissions, resulting in duplication of 
efforts and unnecessary funding sometimes going to the same 
recipients. The President's Fiscal Commission also identified 
hundreds of millions of dollars in water-treatment efforts 
duplicated across the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and USDA, 
not pertaining in some cases to these agencies' core missions.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Expand Onshore and Offshore Energy Production. Despite 
access to abundant domestic resources, the federal government 
has adopted policies that largely prevent American production 
of oil and natural gas. For the country to break free of 
excessive dependence on foreign energy supplies, it requires 
producing more energy at home.
    Unlocking domestic energy supplies in a safe, 
environmentally responsible manner will increase revenues from 
bonus bids, rental payments, royalties, and fees. The budget 
allows for further access in areas such as Alaska, the Outer 
Continental Shelf, including the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Intermountain West.
    Finally, the budget encourages the development of American-
made renewable- and alternative-energy sources, including 
nuclear, wind, solar, and more, affirming the position that 
environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually 
exclusive goals.
    Revise and Reauthorize the Bureau of Land Management's 
Land-Sales Process. Instead of requiring that all proceeds from 
land sales be used to acquire other parcels of land and to 
cover sales expenses, this option would direct that 70 percent 
of the proceeds, net of expenses, go to the Treasury for the 
purposes of deficit reduction by reauthorizing and revising the 
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act and other land-
management statutes. It would limit the Department of the 
Interior's share of the receipts to $60 million per year (plus 
an additional amount to cover BLM's administrative costs) for 
land-acquisition and restoration projects on BLM lands. The 
option would also reduce the amount of federal spending not 
subject to regular oversight through the congressional 
appropriation process. The change would reduce the federal 
budget deficit and ensure that U.S. taxpayers benefit directly 
from land sales.
    Reform Mine-Cleanup Payments and Prevent Non-Mine Cleanup 
Expenditures. The federal government collects fees from coal-
mining companies to restore abandoned mining sites. Money from 
those fees is paid to states to restore abandoned mines within 
their state. However, this program authorizes millions of 
dollars paid from the Treasury for projects unrelated to 
abandoned coal-mine cleanup. The budget recommends reforming 
this program to target expenditures to its intended purpose.
    Reflect Current Value for the Use of Hetch Hetchy 
Reservoir. Since 1913, the city of San Francisco has paid an 
annual $30,000 fee or less to the federal government for its 
use of the O'Shaughnessy Dam and the accompanying Hetch Hetchy 
Reservoir within Yosemite National Park. San Francisco 
generates approximately $40 million in annual hydropower 
revenues from the Hetch Hetchy system, yet has only paid at 
most $30,000 annually--or 7 cents an acre for almost 100 
years--not indexed to inflation. This proposal would remove the 
century-old fee structure to the city without affecting 
wholesale customers and irrigation districts.
    Expand Access to Federal Helium Reserves. Under current 
law, the Federal Helium Program operated by the Bureau of Land 
Management will end in October 2013 as a result of debt 
repayment. The resolution assumes the establishment a new free-
market program that expands access to the federal helium 
reserve to more participants, ensures market transparency and 
fair play, and increases competition--all to ensure a better 
return to the American taxpayers.

                       FUNCTION 350: AGRICULTURE

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The agriculture function includes funds for direct 
assistance and loans to food and fiber producers; export 
assistance; market information; inspection services; and 
agricultural research. Farm policy is driven by the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008--otherwise known as the 
Farm Bill--which provides farmers protection against 
uncertainties, such as poor weather conditions and unfavorable 
market conditions.
    Farm-support programs are divided into three areas: 
commodity programs, crop insurance, and supplemental disaster 
assistance. Commodity programs, which the Farm Bill has 
authorized through the 2013 crop-marketing year, include both 
direct payments and price-based counter-cyclical payments; the 
marketing-assistance loan program; and the average crop-revenue 
election-payment program. Due to recent strength in 
agricultural markets, outlays for price-based programs have 
declined. Nevertheless, direct payments, which do not vary with 
market prices, have remained steady at $5 billion each year. 
Crop insurance outlays, while volatile, have trended sharply 
higher and averaged $5.6 billion over 2008-10, more than double 
their 2000-02 average level. Crop-insurance outlays under the 
CBO baseline average $8.4 billion over 2014-2023.
    With farm income, crop prices, and federal deficits hitting 
new highs, and with food prices going up, it is time to reform 
agricultural-support programs, while maintaining a strong 
safety net for farmers.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $21.7 billion in budget authority 
and $20.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary 
spending in fiscal year 2014 is $6.0 billion in budget 
authority and $6.0 billion in outlays; mandatory spending, the 
majority of the function's total, is $15.7 billion in budget 
authority, with outlays of $14.4 billion. The ten-year totals 
for budget authority and outlays are $196.2 billion and $190.5 
billion, respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Specific policies in this function will be determined by 
the committees of jurisdiction. Among the options they may wish 
to consider are the following.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Reform Agricultural Commodity and Insurance Programs. Under 
this option, mandatory agricultural outlays, other than food 
and nutrition programs, will be reduced by $31.3 billion 
relative to the currently anticipated levels from fiscal year 
2014 through fiscal year 2023. These savings could be achieved 
by reducing both direct payments and crop-insurance subsidies, 
and by reforming export-assistance programs. The Committee on 
Agriculture is responsible for implementing these reductions, 
and to maintain the committee's flexibility, this option 
assumes the savings will not take effect until the beginning of 
the next Farm Bill. Farmers will benefit greatly from other 
provisions in this budget, including regulatory relief, 
fundamental tax reform, and stronger economic growth as the 
burden of federal deficits is lifted from the economy.

               FUNCTION 370: COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The Commerce and Housing Credit function includes mortgage 
credit; the Postal Service (mostly off budget); deposit 
insurance; and most of the activities of the Departments of 
Commerce and Housing and Urban Development. The mortgage-credit 
component of this function includes housing assistance through 
the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal National 
Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation, the Government National Mortgage Association, and 
rural housing programs of the Department of Agriculture. The 
function also includes net postal-service spending and spending 
for deposit-insurance activities of banks, thrifts, and credit 
unions. Finally, most of the Commerce Department is provided 
for in this function, including the International Trade 
Administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Patent and 
Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, and the Bureau of the Census. Also funded 
through this function are independent agencies such as the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal 
Communications Commission, and the majority of the Small 
Business Administration.
    The federal government's commerce and housing activities 
should focus limited resources on efforts to bolster free 
enterprise and economic growth. Such an approach would have the 
additional direct benefit of reducing government spending, 
easing the demand for higher taxes or more borrowing, and 
curbing corporate welfare in the housing, financial-services, 
and telecommunications industries. This budget calls for an end 
to the cycle of future bailouts perpetuated by the Dodd-Frank 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as 
putting a stop to taxpayer subsidies and bailouts for Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    In this function, the budget resolution provides for $1.1 
billion in budget authority and -$10.5 billion in outlays in 
fiscal year 2014. Of that total, 2014 discretionary spending is 
-$10.7 billion in budget authority and -$10.1 billion in 
outlays. Mandatory spending in 2014 is $11.7 billion in budget 
authority and -$0.4 billion in outlays. The function totals 
over ten years are -$44.8 billion in budget authority and 
-$216.1 billion in outlays.
    On-budget totals for fiscal year 2014 are $2.5 billion in 
budget authority and -$9.0 billion in outlays. Of these 
amounts, discretionary budget authority is -$10.9 billion, with 
outlays of -$10.4 billion as well. Mandatory on-budget spending 
for fiscal year 2014 is $13.5 billion in budget authority and 
$1.4 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the on-budget totals 
are -$26.0 billion in budget authority and -$197.3 billion in 
outlays.
    Negative discretionary totals for budget authority and 
outlays mainly reflect the negative subsidy rates applied to 
certain loan and loan-guarantee programs scored under the 
guidelines of the Federal Credit Reform Act, such as FHA and 
Ginnie Mae programs. It should be noted that FHA loans are 
scored using a different accounting method than the fair-value 
estimates that CBO applies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
resulting in budget disparities (see discussion under Mandatory 
Spending).
    Off-budget totals for fiscal year 2014 are -$1.5 billion in 
budget authority and -$1.5 billion in outlays. Of these 
amounts, discretionary budget authority is $0.3 billion in 
budget authority and $0.3 in outlays. Over ten years, the 
discretionary off-budget totals are $3.1 billion in budget 
authority and $3.1 billion in outlays. Mandatory off-budget 
spending for fiscal year 2014 is -$1.7 billion in budget 
authority and -$1.7 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the 
mandatory off-budget totals are -$22.0 billion in budget 
authority and -$22.0 billion in outlays. The negative totals 
for budget authority and outlays in the off-budget portion of 
this function represent savings from the two recommended policy 
proposals described below in addition to monies received by the 
Treasury from the U.S. Postal Service Public Enterprise Fund.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The resolution aims to limit and reform programs in this 
function to reduce spending; to limit the federal government's 
role in housing, financial, and telecommunications markets; and 
to curtail the corporate welfare that distorts and misdirects 
the flow of capital in the free market. While the committees of 
jurisdiction will determine the actual policies in pursuit of 
these goals, the options below offer several potential 
approaches.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Eliminate Corporate Welfare within the Department of 
Commerce. Business subsidies distort the economy, impose unfair 
burdens on taxpayers, and are especially problematic given the 
fiscal problems facing the U.S. government. With potential 
savings of roughly $7 billion over ten years, programs that 
should be considered for elimination include the following:
     The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Program, 
which subsidizes a network of nonprofit extension centers that 
provide technical, financial, and marketing services for small 
and medium-size businesses that are largely available in the 
private market. The program already obtains two-thirds of its 
funding from non-federal sources, and was originally intended 
to be self-supporting.
     Trade Promotion Activities at the International 
Trade Administration [ITA]. This agency, within the Department 
of Commerce, provides trade-promotion services for U.S. 
companies. The fees it charges for these services do not cover 
the cost of these activities. Businesses can obtain similar 
services from state and local governments and the private 
market. The ITA should be eliminated or charge for the full 
cost of these services.
    Tighten the Belts of Government Agencies. Duplication, 
hidden subsidies, and large bureaucracies are symptomatic of 
many agencies within Function 370. Among them are the 
following:
     The Small Business Administration. The SBA 
provides almost $60 million in grants, hidden in its 
discretionary salaries and expenses budget, which could be 
canceled.
     The Securities and Exchange Commission. In fiscal 
year 2013, the SEC estimates that it will spend $1.6 billion on 
salaries and expenses, with $943 million going to compensation 
and benefits alone. The SEC has about 4,500 full-time employees 
at the end of 2012, with an average compensation and benefits 
package of about $209,000 per employee. The SEC's budget has 
swollen by 73 percent since 2008.
    In its 2013 Views and Estimates, the House Committee on 
Financial Services notes the regulatory failures of the SEC 
leading up to the financial crisis:

          In the run-up to the financial crisis and its 
        aftermath, the SEC repeatedly failed to fulfill any 
        part of its mission: the SEC failed to adequately 
        supervise the nation's largest investment banks, which 
        resulted in the bailout of Bear Stearns and the 
        collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing financial 
        panic; the SEC failed to supervise the credit rating 
        agencies that bestowed AAA ratings on securities that 
        later proved to be no better than junk; the SEC failed 
        to ensure that issuers made adequate disclosures to 
        investors about securities cobbled together from poorly 
        underwritten mortgages that were bound to fail; and the 
        SEC was missing in action as Bernard Madoff and Allen 
        Stanford perpetrated the two largest Ponzi schemes in 
        U.S. history. These failures have taken place despite 
        significant increases in funding at the SEC, which has 
        seen its budget nearly triple over the past decade.

    This resolution questions the premise that more funding for 
the SEC means better, smarter regulation. Adding reams of 
regulations to the books and scores of regulators to the 
payrolls will not provide greater transparency, consumer 
protection, and enforcement for increasingly complex markets. 
At a time when trimming the deficit is imperative, the SEC 
should streamline and make more efficient its operations and 
resources; defray taxpayer expenses by designating self-
regulatory organizations (subject to SEC oversight) to perform 
needed examinations of investment advisors; and enhance 
collaboration with other agencies, such as the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, to reduce duplication, waste, and 
overlap in supervision. Ultimately, the committees of 
jurisdiction will establish the specific policies.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Terminate Grants to Worsted-Wool Manufacturers and Payments 
to Wool Manufacturers. The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429) established the 
Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund. This fund authorizes the 
Department of Commerce to provide grants to certain 
manufacturers of worsted-wool products to ease adjustment to 
changes in trade law. The grants, originally slated to end in 
2007, still exist and have been extended until 2014. 
Termination of this temporary grant program is overdue. This 
Act also directs Customs to make payments to wool manufacturers 
from certain duties collected to provide import tax relief. 
This account has been extended twice through amendments and has 
also outlived its original purpose.
    Terminate Corporation for Travel Promotion. In 2010, the 
Congress established a new annual payment to the travel 
industry and created a new government agency, the Corporation 
for Travel Promotion (now called Brand USA), to conduct 
advertising campaigns encouraging foreign travelers to visit 
the United States. This budget recommends ending these 
subsidies and eliminating the new agency because it is not a 
core responsibility of the federal government to pay for and 
conduct advertising campaigns for a certain industry. Moreover, 
the travel industry can and should pay for the advertising that 
it benefits from.
    Restrict New FDIC Authority to Bail Out Bank Creditors. 
Dodd-Frank expands and centralizes power in Washington, 
doubling down on the root causes of the 2008 crisis. It 
contains layer upon layer of new bureaucracy sewn together by 
complex regulations, yet it fails to address key problems, such 
as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that contributed to the worst 
financial meltdown in recent history. Although the bill is 
dubbed ``Wall Street Reform,'' it actually intensifies the 
problem of too-big-to-fail by giving large, interconnected 
financial institutions advantages that small firms will not 
enjoy.
    Although the proponents of Dodd-Frank went to great lengths 
to denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them. The Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation now has the authority to access 
taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of large, 
``systemically significant'' financial institutions. CBO 
estimates the cost for this new authority at $33 billion, 
though CBO Director Elmendorf has testified that ``the cost of 
the program will depend on future economic and financial events 
that are inherently unpredictable.'' In other words, another 
large-scale financial crisis in which creditors are guaranteed 
government bailouts could cost much, much more.
    This resolution calls for ending this regime, now enshrined 
into law, which paves the way for future bailouts. House 
Republicans put forth an enhanced bankruptcy alternative that--
instead of rewarding corporate failure with taxpayer dollars--
would place the responsibility for large, failing firms in the 
hands of the shareholders who own them, the managers who run 
them, and the creditors who finance them.
    This resolution also supports cancelling the ability of the 
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (created by Dodd-Frank) 
to fund its operations by spending from the Federal Reserve's 
yearly remittances to the Treasury Department. Dodd-Frank was 
written to provide off-budget financing for the new Bureau, 
which is housed within the Federal Reserve but enjoys complete 
autonomy. To preserve its independence as the nation's monetary 
authority, the Federal Reserve is off budget and its excess 
earnings from monetary operations are returned to the Treasury 
to reduce the deficit. Now, instead of directing these 
remittances to reduce the deficit, Dodd-Frank requires 
diverting a portion of them to pay for a new bureaucracy with 
the authority to write far-reaching rules on financial products 
and restrict credit to the very customers it seeks to 
``protect,'' outside the annual oversight of Congress through 
the appropriations process.
    Privatize the Business of Government-Controlled Mortgage 
Giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Absent major reforms, Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac are expected to have an all-in cost to 
taxpayers of $330 billion through 2023 according to CBO 
estimates. This includes losses on preexisting commitments--
those entered into prior to the 2008 conservatorship--of about 
$248 billion. CBO has recorded Fannie and Freddie as explicit 
financial components of the Federal budget, accounting for 
their liabilities as liabilities of the government. In 
contrast, the administration does not fully account for 
taxpayer exposure to Fannie and Freddie, leaving the entities 
off budget.
    So far, Treasury has already provided $187 billion in 
bailouts to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and 
Ginnie Mae now dominate the market for the issuance of new 
mortgage-backed securities with a combined 99 percent market 
share.
    This budget recommends putting an end to corporate 
subsidies and taxpayer bailouts in housing finance. It 
envisions the eventual elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, winding down their government guarantee and ending 
taxpayer subsidies. In the interim, it supports removing 
distortions to allow an influx of private capital and advancing 
various measures that would bring transparency and 
accountability to these two government-sponsored enterprises.
    Reform the Credit Reform Act To Incorporate Fair-Value 
Accounting Principles. As the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie 
continue, another bailout to a housing giant looms. The market 
share of government agencies in the primary mortgage-insurance 
market is approximately 70 percent, the majority of which is 
FHA. There has been a constant, dangerous reduction in the 
capital ratio of FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which is 
supposed to protect the FHA from unforeseen losses. The MMIF is 
currently -1.44 percent--far below the Fund's congressionally-
mandated ratio of 2 percent.
    Given the precarious financial position of the FHA, the 
government should adopt measures to control the assumption of 
risk by FHA as other government-backed entities (e.g., Fannie 
and Freddie) are wound down. Right now, the budget accounts for 
the risks carried by FHA differently than how it accounts for 
those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These differences simply 
encourage just such a shift in risk.
    The cost of FHA-insured loans are scored by calculating the 
net present value of the cash flows associated with loans and 
discounting those flows using risk-free marketable Treasury 
security rate. In contrast, CBO uses fair-value accounting for 
Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-guaranteed loans. Fair-value 
accounting recognizes that adverse economic events such as 
market downturns can cause loan defaults to rise, thus it 
reflects the full financial risk incurred by the taxpayer of 
backing these loans. In other words, the current budgetary 
treatment of FHA loans understates the full costs associated 
with them, thus it encourages policymakers to shift risk from 
Fannie and Freddie to FHA.
    This resolution requires CBO to provide supplemental 
estimates using fair-value scoring for federally-backed 
mortgages and mortgage-backed securities regardless of which 
agency of the federal government is acting as the insurer or 
guarantor.
    As the government reforms its role in the U.S. housing 
markets, which this resolution supports, Fannie, Freddie and 
FHA loans should be treated with parity and full transparency. 
The housing-finance system of the future, however, should allow 
private-market secondary lenders to fairly, freely, and 
transparently compete, with the knowledge that they will 
ultimately bear appropriate risk for the loans they guarantee. 
Their viability will be determined by the soundness of their 
practices and the value of their services.

                     OFF-BUDGET MANDATORY SPENDING

    Reform the Postal Service. The United States Postal Service 
is unable to meet its financial obligations and is in desperate 
need of structural reforms. USPS's financial troubles include 
an estimated $2 billion operating loss in 2013 and $17 billion 
of payments owed to provide promised health-benefit 
compensation for Postal retirees and a total unfunded liability 
of $45 billion.
    The budget recommends giving the Postal Service the 
flexibility that any business needs to respond to changing 
market conditions, including declining mail volume, which is 
down more than 20 percent since 2006. The budget also 
recognizes the need to reform compensation of postal employees 
who currently pay a smaller share of the costs of their health 
and life-insurance premiums than other federal employees. Taken 
together, these reforms are estimated to save about $22 billion 
over ten years and would help restore USPS solvency.

                      FUNCTION 400: TRANSPORTATION

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This budget function includes ground, air, water, and other 
transportation funding. The major agencies and programs here 
include the Department of Transportation (which includes the 
Federal Aviation Administration the Federal Highway 
Administration; the Federal Transit Administration; highway, 
motor-carrier, rail, and pipeline-safety programs; and the 
Maritime Administration); the Department of Homeland Security 
(including the Federal Air Marshals, the Transportation 
Security Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard); the 
aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; and the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $87.1 billion in budget authority 
and $93.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2014 is $31.5 billion, with outlays of $91 
billion; and mandatory spending is $55.6 billion in budget 
authority and $2.2 billion in outlays. The large discrepancies 
between budget authority and outlays here results from the 
split treatment of the transportation trust funds, such as the 
Highway Trust Fund, through which funding is provided as a type 
of mandatory budget authority; and outlays, which are 
controlled by annual limitations on obligations set in 
appropriations acts. Over ten years, budget authority totals 
$801.3 billion, with outlays of $845.2 billion.
    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) 
surface transportation authorization act provided stable 
funding for major construction projects. Ahead of the 
President's FY 2014 infrastructure proposals, MAP-21 already 
included important reforms to streamline regulatory barriers 
and incorporate performance information into highway, transit, 
and safety programs to prioritize projects. It additionally 
consolidated or eliminated 70 DOT programs. The budget includes 
MAP-21 levels of funding until its expiration in FY 2015.
    Maintaining the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the 
tradition of the trust fund being user fee supported is a 
priority. While the Highway Trust Fund is solvent through 2014, 
efforts need to be made to find a long-term solution to the 
trust fund's financial challenges. The budget recognizes the 
need for continued reforms in this area to adequately maintain, 
improve, and--where appropriate--expand infrastructure. Though 
the federal-aid highway program was intended to be fully 
financed by gas-tax revenues, the fund has recently operated at 
spending levels well in excess of gas-tax receipts. The Highway 
Trust Fund's financing shortfall has been building for years. 
Over the next decade, CBO anticipates this gap to continue to 
increase under current spending levels and policy, causing the 
Highway Trust Fund to run average annual cash deficits of $13 
to $14 billion.
    As a result of these chronic shortfalls, the trust fund has 
required three large general-fund contributions totaling $35 
billion since 2008 in addition to a general-fund transfer of 
$27.5 billion for transportation in the 2009 stimulus. MAP-21 
included $18.8 billion in general-fund transfers that were for 
the first time offset by spending reductions in other programs.
    Despite these large recent infusions, CBO estimates that 
the Highway Trust Fund still faces insolvency sometime in 2015 
once MAP-21 expires. Over the next decade, CBO projects a 
growing gap causing the Highway Trust Fund to run cash deficits 
of over $126 billion within the budget window.
    A loophole in budget rules allows Congress to bail out the 
Highway Trust Fund without the transfer of taxpayer resources 
being recorded as a net increase in spending or deficits. The 
budget resolution once again includes a reform to close this 
loophole to ensure any future transfer is fully offset. Instead 
of continuing to rely on general-fund transfers for solvency 
going forward, the Congress needs to address the systemic 
factors that have been driving the trust fund's bankruptcy. 
Congress also needs to continue to reform the critical surface-
transportation infrastructure and safety programs to put them 
on sound financial footing.
    Excluding the stimulus, funding for the Department of 
Transportation increased by 547.6 percent in the 
administration's first two years. The budget supports 
maintaining essential funding for surface transportation, 
aviation, and safety--offset by reductions in other 
transportation activities of lower priority to the federal 
government. As is true elsewhere, actual policy decisions will 
be determined by the committees of jurisdiction. The options 
below suggest one set of policies that can help meet the 
budget's levels.

                      Illustrative Policy Options


                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Eliminate Funding for High-Speed Rail and Amtrak Operating 
Subsidies. High-speed-rail projects and any new intercity-rail 
projects should be pursued only if they can be established as 
self-supporting commercial services. In addition, the budget 
supports removing Amtrak's subsidies that have been insulating 
Amtrak from making the needed structural reforms to start 
producing returns. The 1997 Amtrak authorization law required 
Amtrak to operate free of subsidies by 2002. The budget 
supports continued reforms for Amtrak--including requiring 
overtime limits for its employees and a review of executive 
salaries--as well as reductions in headquarters and 
administrative costs for agencies.
    Reductions in Transportation Security Agency Funding. 
Enhanced operational efficiencies can be obtained without 
compromising security priorities. Since 2007, Congress has 
increased TSA's budget by 18 percent, yet passenger traffic has 
decreased. Inefficient procurement practices led to over $150 
million on unused screening equipment in expensive storage 
facilities. Risk-based passenger-screening programs should 
proceed with validation of methodology. Moreover, TSA has 
denied applications from airports to opt out of federal 
screener operations without adequate justification. 
Applications for private screening that meet security 
requirements and could improve cost-efficiency goals should be 
approved expeditiously.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Ensure Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. The budget 
recognizes that the Highway Trust Fund is projected by CBO to 
run negative balances by FY 2015 under current levels of 
spending. By existing law and cash management practices, the 
Department of Transportation would need to slow down or reduce 
spending upon the exhaustion of trust fund balances. Congress 
needs to reform this critically important trust fund to put it 
on a sound financial footing--without further bailouts that 
increase the deficit.
    The budget recommends sensible reforms to avert the 
bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund by aligning spending from 
the Trust Fund with incoming revenues collected. The budget 
also includes a provision to ensure any future general-fund 
transfers will be fully offset. Further, the budget recognizes 
the need to explore innovative financing mechanisms to support 
surface-transportation infrastructure and safety programs, for 
example, with further public-private sector partnerships 
demonstrated in the TIFIA program. The budget also recommends 
giving states more flexibility to fund the highway projects 
they feel are most critical. One possible reform could include 
a pilot program for states to fund their transportation 
priorities with state revenues, opt out of the federal gas tax, 
and forgo federal allocations.
    Phase Out Subsidies for Essential Air Service. EAS is a 
classic example of a temporary government program that has 
become immortal. EAS funding--originally intended to provide 
transitional assistance to small communities to adjust to the 
airline deregulation in the late 1970s--has not only continued, 
but has grown rapidly in recent years.
    Simplify the Fee Structure and Help Offset Costs in 
Aviation Security. Taxpayers currently subsidize more than 60 
percent of the cost of aviation security for the travelers who 
use and directly benefit from the system. This burden could be 
eased by shifting greater responsibility to these direct 
beneficiaries. One way to do so would be by applying a simple 
flat fee of $5 per one-way trip for security system users, 
instead of a $2.50 fee for a one-way trip with no stops and a 
$5 fee for a trip with one or more stops.
    Terminate the Ocean Freight Differential Program for Food 
Aid. Current law requires the Department of Transportation to 
reimburse other Federal agencies for the extra costs the 
agencies pay because of legal requirements that food aid be 
shipped on U.S. ships. The budget exempts food aid from this 
required reimbursement, which needlessly adds to taxpayer cost 
for these humanitarian missions.

            FUNCTION 450: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This function includes programs that provide federal 
funding for economic and community development in both urban 
and rural areas, including: Community Development Block Grants; 
the non-power activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority; the 
regional commissions, including the Appalachian Regional 
Commission; the Economic Development Administration; and 
partial funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    Homeland Security spending in this function includes the 
state- and local-government grant programs of the Department of 
Homeland Security, including part of the funding for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    Aside from those programs related to emergency preparedness 
and critical needs, this resolution supports streamlining non-
essential community and regional initiatives that are not core 
functions of the federal government.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $8.5 billion in budget authority 
and $27.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2014 is $8 billion, with $26.2 billion in 
associated outlays. Mandatory spending in 2014 is $566 million 
in budget authority and $1.5 billion in outlays. The ten-year 
totals for budget authority and outlays are $88.2 billion and 
$139.4 billion, respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    As elsewhere, the committees of jurisdiction will make 
final policy determinations. The proposals below indicate 
policy options that might be considered.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Eliminate Non-Core Programs. At a time when shrinking 
spending is imperative for the government's fiscal well-being, 
this resolution recommends taking a hard look at community and 
regional programs; focusing on those that deliver funds for 
non-core federal-government functions; and consolidating and 
streamlining programs wherever possible. Among programs that 
should be considered in this review are the following:
    The Community Development Fund. Historically, about 80 to 
90 percent of funding for the CDF is spent on the Community 
Development Block Grant. CDBG is an annual formula grant 
directed to state and local governments to address a broad 
array of initiatives. In 2013, $3.5 billion was appropriated 
for CDBG. Currently, there is no maximum community-poverty rate 
to be eligible for funds, nor is there an exclusion for 
communities with high average income.
    Focus DHS Urban Area Security Initiative grants to Tier 1 
Cities. UASI grants to over 30 cities have not produced 
measurable results for the most critical cities. This proposal 
would limit the grants to Tier 1, or the top ten cities, on a 
risk-based formula basis.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency Reforms. The budget 
supports implementation of FEMA reforms passed by Congress to 
improve service delivery and cost-efficiencies in state and 
local programs. The budget also supports efforts in the House-
passed FEMA reauthorization including measures to help states 
and localities use existing supplies and equipment in FEMA's 
inventory to help communities recover from disasters 
expeditiously and cost-effectively.
    The budget also acknowledges the need to look at reforms in 
disaster-relief assistance to ensure that those state and local 
governments most in need are receiving the assistance required. 
The past three administrations have issued a total of 2,213 
disaster declarations--66 percent of all FEMA disaster 
declarations since 1953.\1\ In 2011, the current administration 
shattered the records for the number of FEMA declarations in 
one year: 242. The prior high was 158 declarations set in 1996. 
According to the Government Accountability Office, this is part 
of a broader trend.\2\ From 2002 to 2011, presidents have 
declared 35 percent more disasters than they did during the 
preceding decade. The disaster declaration is intended as a 
process to help state and local governments receive federal 
assistance when the severity and magnitude of the disaster 
exceeds state and local resources, and when federal assistance 
is absolutely necessary. When disaster-relief decisions are not 
made judiciously, limited resources are diverted away from 
communities that are truly in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Matt Mayer, ``Congress Should Limit the Presidential Abuse of 
FEMA,'' Heritage Foundation, January 2012.
    \2\Government Accountability Office, ``2012 Annual Report: 
Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 
Savings, and Enhance Revenue,'' February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget supports GAO recommendations and takes a closer 
look at: (1) reducing federal expenditures by updating 
disaster-declaration-eligibility indicators, like per capita 
thresholds and other major disaster metrics, by (for example) 
adjusting for inflation; and (2) providing more scrutiny on 
cost-share levels and waivers. For example, preparedness 
programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grants have 
shown greater buy-in by state and local governments; 
demonstrated better performance in delivering resources to 
first responders; and ensured efficient and effective response 
operations. These types of reforms will increase transparency 
in the way that disaster declaration decisions are made and in 
accurately measuring a state's capacity to respond to a 
disaster.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Reform the National Flood Insurance Program. While 
collections from policyholders should cover the costs 
associated with flood-insurance activities, the NFIP owes a 
debt of over $23 billion to the Treasury, on which it must also 
pay debt service. Most of this debt accumulated during the 
hurricane season of 2005. On average, premiums collections from 
subsidized policies cover only 40 to 45 percent of the full 
expected cost of the insurance.
    The numbers are stark. NFIP currently has more than 5.6 
million policy holders and $1.3 trillion in contingent taxpayer 
liabilities for property coverage. With only $3.6 billion in 
written premiums and $23 billion debts, prospects are dim under 
current law that the program will ever reach solvency.
    The Biggert-Waters Act included important structural 
reforms to remove NFIP subsidies for new purchases of existing 
properties with high-flood risk, second and vacation homes, and 
for properties that realize severe repeated losses from flood 
damage. However, these reforms are not enough to protect 
taxpayers from NFIP's financial exposure. The House budget 
includes proposals to further pare back existing NFIP 
subsidies, meet our commitments to pay back taxpayers for past 
loans, and level the playing field for private insurers to 
enter the market, while sustaining the fund's ability to make 
good on future claims.
    Reduce energy subsidies for commercial interests. The 
budget recommends spending reductions for rural green-energy 
loan guarantees. These loan guarantees come with federal 
mandates that channel private investments into financing the 
administration's preferred interests at taxpayers' expense.

   FUNCTION 500: EDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIAL SERVICES

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    A well-educated workforce is one of the key drivers of 
strong economic growth. In the face of global and technological 
advances that have made the modern economy more complex and 
dynamic, it is imperative that all Americans have the 
opportunity to access a high-quality education. Yet, though 
federal spending on the Department of Education and related 
education programs has grown significantly over the past few 
decades, academic achievement has not seen a commensurate 
improvement.
    Now more than ever, the nation's students must have the 
opportunity to access the high-quality education and skills-
training needed to enable the workforce to compete in the 
rapidly changing global economy. At the same time, Congress 
must make every dollar count by eliminating wasteful, 
duplicative, and ineffective programs. The Government 
Accountability Office has identified many areas that are ripe 
for reform. In the area of education, their reports have 
identified 82 separate programs designed to improve teacher 
quality across ten federal agencies, and dozens of overlapping 
job-training programs.
    Reforms in these areas are reflected in Function 500, which 
covers federal spending primarily in the Departments of 
Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services for programs 
that directly provide--or assist states and localities in 
providing--services to young people and adults. Activities 
reflected here provide developmental services to low-income 
children; help fund programs for disadvantaged and other 
elementary- and secondary-school students; make grants and 
loans to post-secondary students; and fund job-training and 
employment services for people of all ages.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution provides $56.4 billion in budget authority 
and $77.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. In that year, 
discretionary spending is $95.1 billion in budget authority and 
$94 billion in outlays; mandatory spending in 2014 is -$38.7 
billion in budget authority and -$16.7 billion in outlays. Over 
ten years, spending in this function totals $905.8 billion in 
budget authority and $925.9 billion in outlays.
    The negative mandatory numbers are due to the direct-
lending program, in which the Department of Education acts 
effectively as a bank making student loans. However, for 
reasons addressed later in this section, these projected future 
savings are misleading because they fail to account for the 
market risk of the loans.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The committees of jurisdiction will make final policy 
determinations, but options worthy of consideration include the 
following.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Reform Job-Training Programs. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics reports that over 12.0 million Americans are 
unemployed. Yet, they also report 3.7 million job openings. 
This gap is due in part to the failure of the nation's 
workforce-development programs to successfully match workers' 
skills with employers' needs. Federal job-training programs are 
balkanized, difficult to access, and lacking in accountability. 
In January 2011, the GAO issued a report that identified 47 
federal employment and training programs that overlap with at 
least one other program, providing similar services to similar 
populations. Together, those GAO-identified programs spent $18 
billion in fiscal year 2009, including stimulus dollars. Since 
GAO issued that report, the Education and Workforce Committee 
has conducted extensive work in this arena and added to the 
list, identifying more than 50 duplicative and overlapping 
programs.
    This bureaucratic nightmare fails workers and employers 
alike and wastes taxpayer dollars. Senator Coburn has presented 
a report highlighting the high amount of waste, fraud, and 
abuse that occurs in these programs. Even President Obama noted 
in his 2012 State of the Union Address that the maze of 
confusing training programs must be cut through. To that end, 
all congressional committees with jurisdiction over job-
training programs should look to consolidate as many 
administrative structures as possible to eliminate duplication 
and maximize taxpayer funds by focusing them on the most 
effective means of delivering job-training activities. The 
Education and the Workforce Committee, for instance, recently 
introduced legislation to that end.
    This budget improves accountability by calling for the 
consolidation of duplicative federal job-training programs into 
more targeted career-scholarship programs. This budget will 
also improve these programs' accountability by tracking the 
type of training provided, the cost-per-trainee, employment 
after training, and whether the trainee secures a job in his or 
her preferred field. A streamlined approach with increased 
oversight and accountability will not only provide 
administrative savings, but improve access, choice, and 
flexibility to enable workers and job seekers to respond 
quickly and effectively to whatever specific career challenges 
they face.
    Moreover, this budget adopts a proposal from President 
Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget to close chronically low-
performing Job Corps centers. Such a reform will allow those 
funds to be better invested in centers with proven track 
records.
    Make the Pell Grant Program Sustainable. Pell Grants are 
the perfect example of promises that cannot be kept. The 
program is on an unsustainable path, a fact acknowledged by the 
President's own fiscal year 2013 budget. The College Cost 
Reduction and Access Act of 2007, the Higher Education 
Opportunity Act of 2008, the ``stimulus'' bill, and the Student 
Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010 all made Pell Grants 
more generous than the federal budget could afford. This, along 
with a dramatic rise in the number of eligible students due to 
the recession, has caused program costs to more than double 
since 2008, from $16.1 billion in 2008 to an estimated $34.2 
billion in fiscal year 2014. Moreover, the program is beginning 
to increasingly rely on mandatory funding to solve its 
discretionary shortfalls. For instance, the Department of 
Education warned in fiscal year 2012 that without changes to 
reduce program costs, Pell Grants would have an ending 
shortfall of $20.4 billion. And based on current CBO estimates, 
the program will again face a shortfall in fiscal year 2015.
    Instead of making necessary, long-term reforms, previous 
Congresses again resorted to short-term funding patches--a 
temporary answer that will not prevent another severe funding 
cliff for the program in the future. The President's past 
budgets have failed to make the tough choices about the future 
of Pell Grants. For instance, his fiscal year 2013 budget 
increased the maximum Pell award, but only provided funding for 
that level of award through the 2014-2015 academic year. These 
decisions put the program at greater risk of ultimately being 
unable to fulfill its promises to students.
    Reforms are necessary to enable the program to continue 
helping low-income students gain access to higher education. 
The budget recommends the following:
     Roll back certain recent expansions to the needs 
analysis to ensure aid is targeted to the truly needy. The 
Department of Education attributed 14 percent of program growth 
between 2008 and 2011 to recent legislative expansions to the 
needs-analysis formula. The biggest cost drivers come from 
changes made in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 
2007, such as the expansions of the level at which a student 
qualifies for an automatic zero Expected Family Contribution 
and the income-protection allowance. These should be returned 
to pre--CCRAA levels.
     Eliminate administrative fees paid to 
participating institutions. The government pays participating 
schools $5 per grant to administer and distribute Pell awards. 
Schools already benefit significantly from the Pell program 
because the aid makes attendance at those schools more 
affordable.
     Consider a maximum-income cap. Currently there is 
no fixed upper-income limit for a student to qualify for Pell. 
Figures are simply plugged into a formula to calculate the 
amount for which the student qualifies. The higher the income 
level of the student and the student's family, the smaller 
grant they receive.
     Eliminate eligibility for less-than-half-time 
students. Funding should be reserved for students with a larger 
commitment to their education.
     Consider reforms to Return of Title IV Funds 
regulations. Simple changes to this policy, such as increasing 
the amount of time a student must attend class in order to 
withdraw without debt owed for back assistance, will increase 
the likelihood of students completing their courses and lower 
incentives for fraud.
     Adopt a sustainable maximum-award level. The 
Department of Education attributed 25 percent of recent program 
growth to the $619 increase in the maximum award done in the 
stimulus bill that took effect in the 2009--10 academic year. 
To get program costs back to a sustainable level, the budget 
recommends maintaining the maximum award for the 2012--2013 
award year of $5,645 in each year of the budget window. This 
award would be fully funded through discretionary spending.
    Encourage Policies That Promote Innovation. Federal higher-
education policy should increasingly be focused not solely on 
financial aid, but on policies that maximize innovation and 
ensure a robust menu of institutional options from which 
students and their families are able to choose. Such policies 
should include reexamining the data made available to students 
to make certain they are armed with information that will 
assist them in making their postsecondary decisions. 
Additionally, the federal government should act to remove 
regulatory barriers in higher education that act to restrict 
flexibility and innovative teaching, particularly as it relates 
to non-traditional models such as online coursework.
    Eliminate Ineffective and Duplicative Federal Education 
Programs. The current structure for K-12 programs at the 
Department of Education is fragmented and ineffective. 
Moreover, many programs are duplicative or are highly 
restricted, serving only a small number of students. Given the 
budget constraints, Congress must focus resources on programs 
that truly help students. The budget calls for reorganization 
and streamlining of K-12 programs and anticipates major reforms 
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was last 
reauthorized as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. The 
budget also recommends that the committees of jurisdiction 
terminate and reduce programs that are failing to improve 
student achievement and address the duplication among the 82 
programs that are designed to improve teacher quality.
    Encourage Private Funding for Cultural Agencies. Federal 
subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting can no longer be justified. The activities and 
content funded by these agencies go beyond the core mission of 
the federal government, and they are generally enjoyed by 
people of higher-income levels, making them a wealth transfer 
from poorer to wealthier citizens. These agencies can raise 
funds from private-sector patrons, which will also free them 
from any risk of political interference.
    Eliminate the Corporation for National and Community 
Service. Programs administered out of this agency--which 
created the oxymoron ``paid volunteer''--provide funding to 
students and others who work in certain areas of public 
service. Participation in these programs is not based on need. 
The federal government already has aid programs focused on low-
income students, and paying volunteers is not a core federal 
responsibility, especially in times of high deficits and debt. 
Further, it is much more efficient to have such efforts operate 
at the state and local level by the community that receives the 
benefit of the service.
    Eliminate Administrative Fees Paid to Schools in the 
Campus-Based Student Aid Programs. Under current law, 
participating higher-education institutions are allowed to use 
5 percent of federal program funds for administrative purposes. 
The budget recommends prohibiting these funds from being used 
for administrative costs. Schools already benefit significantly 
from participating in federal student-aid programs.
    Promote State, Local, and Private Funding for Museums and 
Libraries. The Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services 
is an independent agency that makes grants to museums and 
libraries. This is not a core federal responsibility. This 
function can be funded at the state and local level and 
augmented significantly by charitable contributions from the 
private sector.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Repeal New Funding from the Student Aid and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2010. During the debate on SAFRA, the 
Congressional Budget Office provided estimates showing that 
projected future savings from a government takeover of all 
federal student loans decreased dramatically when ``market 
risk'' was taken into account. Since that time, the President's 
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and the Pew--
Peterson Commission on Budget Reform have recommended the 
incorporation of fair-value accounting for all federal loan and 
loan-guarantee programs to enable a true assessment of their 
cost to taxpayers. In 2012, the House passed H.R. 3581, the 
Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, which would mandate 
fair-value accounting. Unfortunately, SAFRA used the higher 
non-adjusted savings projection to subsidize the new health-
care law and to increase spending on several education 
programs. Although much of the funding allocations have already 
been spent, Congress could cancel the future spending in the 
following ways:
     First, it could repeal the expansion of the 
Income-Based Repayment program. SAFRA made the IBR plan more 
generous for new borrowers of Direct Loans. This program, 
created by the CCRAA and accelerated by the administration, is 
still relatively new. Moreover, there are concerns that the 
expansions could disproportionately benefit graduate and 
professional students. Congress should ensure the program is 
meeting its intended goals before it is expanded.
     Second, Congress could repeal the new mandatory 
College Access Challenge Grants. SAFRA dedicated $750 million 
in mandatory spending to this discretionary program and created 
a ``funding cliff' with resources abruptly terminating in 2014.
     Third, it could make discretionary payments, 
rather than mandatory payments, to non-profit servicers. SAFRA 
established two separate funding categories for Direct Loan 
servicing contracts, a mandatory stream for eligible non-profit 
services and a discretionary stream for other servicers. Both 
of these types of servicers should be funded with discretionary 
funds.
     Fourth, it could move funding for the Community 
College/TAA grant program to the discretionary side of the 
budget. SAFRA provides an additional $500 million in mandatory 
funding per year for fiscal years 2011--14 for the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training 
program--a competitive grant program administered by the 
Department of Labor. This program should not be funded with 
mandatory funds.
    Accept the Fiscal Commission's Proposal to Eliminate In-
School Interest Subsidies for Undergraduate Students. The 
federal government focuses aid decisions on family income prior 
to a student's enrollment, and then provides a number of 
repayment protections and, in some cases, loan forgiveness 
after graduation. There is no evidence that in-school interest 
subsidies are critical to individual matriculation.
    Terminate the Duplicative Social Services Block Grant. The 
Social Services Block Grant is an annual payment sent to States 
without a matching requirement to help achieve a range of 
social goals, including child care, health services, and 
employment services. Most of these are also funded by other 
federal programs. States are given wide discretion to determine 
how to spend this money and are not required to demonstrate the 
outcomes of this spending, so there is no evidence of its 
effectiveness. The budget recommends eliminating this 
duplicative spending.
                          FUNCTION 550: HEALTH

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The principal driver of spending in this function is 
Medicaid, the federal-state low-income health program. It 
represents more than 70 percent of the function total, and is 
growing at a rate of 8 percent per year--far faster than the 
growth of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office 
projects federal spending on this program to be $265 billion in 
fiscal year 2013. This is expected to more than double within 
the next ten years, reaching $572 billion by fiscal year 2023.
    But this represents only the federal share of Medicaid. 
State spending on the program is expected to follow these same 
trends. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services' December 2011 Actuarial Report on the Financial 
Outlook on Medicaid, total state spending will rise from $159.2 
billion in fiscal year 2011 to $340 billion in fiscal year 
2020.
    While these spending trends are clearly unsustainable, 
Medicaid also has fostered a two-tiered hierarchy in the 
health-care marketplace that stigmatizes Medicaid enrollees. 
Its perverse funding structure is exacerbating budget pressures 
at the state and federal level, while creating a mountain of 
waste. With administrators looking to control costs and 
providers refusing to participate in a system that severely 
under-reimburses their services, Medicaid beneficiaries are 
ultimately finding it increasingly difficult to obtain even the 
most basic medical care. Absent reform, Medicaid will not be 
able to deliver on its promise to provide a sturdy health-care 
safety net for society's most vulnerable.
    Medicaid's current structure gives states a perverse 
incentive to expand the program and little incentive to save. 
For every dollar that a state government spends on Medicaid, 
the federal government pays an average of 57 cents. Expanding 
Medicaid coverage during boom years is tempting and easy to 
do--state governments pay less than half the cost. Yet to 
restrain Medicaid's growth, states must rescind a dollar's 
worth of coverage to save 43 cents.
    The recently enacted health-care law adds even more 
liabilities to an already unsustainable program. CBO estimates 
the new law will increase federal Medicaid spending by $635 
billion. This is due to the millions of new beneficiaries that 
the law drives into the program. In fact, CBO estimates that in 
2023, 12 million new enrollees will be added to the Medicaid 
program as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
    For all these reasons, this budget recommends a fundamental 
reform of the Medicaid program. One potential approach is 
described below.
    In addition to Medicaid, this budget function includes 
spending for the Affordable Care Act's exchange subsidies; 
State Children's Health Insurance Program; health research and 
training, including the National Institutes of Health and 
substance-abuse prevention and treatment; and consumer and 
occupational health and safety, including the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration.
    Discretionary spending in this function includes funding 
for Project Bioshield, NIH, the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, and the Food and Drug Administration.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $363.8 billion in budget authority 
and $378.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. 
Discretionary spending for the year is $40.1 billion in budget 
authority and $57.6 billion in outlays; mandatory spending is 
$323.6 billion in budget authority and $321 billion in outlays. 
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $3.98 
trillion and $3.97 trillion, respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The exact contours of a Medicaid reform--as well as other 
policies flowing from the fiscal assumptions in this budget 
resolution--will be determined by the committees of 
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the need for fundamental Medicaid 
reform and other measures to slow the growth of federal 
spending are unquestioned, and one set of potential approaches 
is described below.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Provide State Flexibility on Medicaid. One way to secure 
the Medicaid benefit is by converting the federal share of 
Medicaid spending into an allotment tailored to meet each 
state's needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. 
Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all 
approach that has tied the hands of state governments. States 
would no longer be shackled by federally determined program 
requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, each state would 
have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program 
that fit the needs of its unique population.
    The budget resolution proposes to transform Medicaid from 
an open-ended entitlement into a block-granted program like 
SCHIP. These programs would be unified under the proposal and 
grown together for population growth and inflation.
    This reform also would improve the health-care safety net 
for low-income Americans by giving states the ability to offer 
their Medicaid populations more options and better access to 
care. Medicaid recipients, like all other Americans, deserve to 
choose their own doctors and make their own health-care 
decisions, instead of having Washington make those decisions 
for them.
    There are numerous examples across the country where states 
have used existing, but limited flexibility of Medicaid's 
waiver program to introduce innovative reforms that produced 
cost savings, quality improvements, and beneficiary 
satisfaction. The state of Indiana implemented such reforms 
through the Healthy Indiana Plan, a patient-centered system 
that provided health coverage to uninsured residents who didn't 
qualify for Medicaid. Enrollees in this program had access to 
benefits such as physician services, prescription drugs, both 
patient and outpatient hospital care, and disease management. 
Unfortunately, the current administration denied Indiana's 
request to continue operating their program under the Medicaid 
waiver rules.
    The Medicaid reforms proposed in the fiscal year 2014 
budget take the opposite approach and instead provide all 
states with the necessary flexibility to pursue reforms similar 
to the Indiana plan.
    Based on this kind of reform, this budget assumes $810 
billion in savings over ten years, easing the fiscal burdens 
imposed on state budgets and contributing to the long-term 
stabilization of the federal government's fiscal path.
    Repeal the Medicaid Expansions in the New Health-Care Law. 
The recently enacted health-care law calls for major expansions 
in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. These expansions 
will have a significant impact on the federal share of the 
Medicaid program, and will dramatically increase outlays.
    In the face of enormous stress on federal and state budgets 
and declining quality of care for Medicaid, the new health-care 
law would increase the eligible population for the program by 
one-third. For fiscal years 2014 through 2023, CBO projects the 
new law will increase federal spending by $635 billion.
    This future fiscal burden will have serious budgetary 
consequences for both federal and state governments. While the 
health law requires the federal government to finance 100 
percent of the Medicaid costs associated with covering new 
enrollees, this provision begins to phase out in fiscal year 
2016. At that time, state governments will be required to 
assume a share of this cost. This share increases from fiscal 
year 2016 through 2020, when states will be required to finance 
10 percent of the health law's expansion of Medicaid.
    Not only does this expansion magnify the challenges to both 
state and federal budgets, it also binds the hands of local 
governments in developing solutions that meet the unique needs 
of their citizens. The health-care law would exacerbate the 
already crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates that 
have resulted in below-market reimbursements, poor health-care 
outcomes, and restrictive services. The budget calls for 
repealing the Medicaid expansions contained in the health-care 
law and removing the law's burdensome programmatic mandates on 
state governments. Adopting this option would save $635.8 
billion over ten years.
    Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health-
Care Law. According to CBO estimates, the health law proposes 
to spend over $1.2 trillion over the next ten years providing 
eligible individuals with subsidies to purchase government-
approved health insurance. These subsidies can only be used to 
purchase plans that meet standards determined by the new 
health-care law. In addition to this enormous market 
distortion, the law also stipulates a complex maze of 
eligibility and income tests to determine how much of a subsidy 
qualifying individuals may receive.
    The new law couples these subsidies with a mandate for 
individuals to purchase health insurance and bureaucratic 
controls on the types of insurance that may legally be offered. 
Taken together, these provisions will undermine the private 
insurance market, which serves as the backbone of the current 
U.S. health-care system. Exchange subsidies will undermine the 
competitive forces of the marketplace. Government mandates will 
drive out all but the largest insurance companies. Punitive tax 
penalties will force individuals to purchase coverage whether 
they choose to or not. Further, this budget does not condone 
any policy that would require entities or individuals to 
finance activities make health decisions that violate their 
religious beliefs. This budget repeals the President's onerous 
health-care law for this and many other reasons.
    Left in place, the health law will create pressures that 
will eventually lead to a single-payer system in which the 
federal government determines how much health care Americans 
need and what kind of care they can receive. This budget 
recommends repealing the architecture of this new law, which 
puts heath-care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats, and 
instead allowing Congress to pursue patient-centered health-
care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by 
empowering consumers.
    For Function 550, repeal of the insurance subsidies and 
other exchange-related spending would save roughly $1.1 
trillion over ten years. To be clear, this budget repeals all 
federal spending related to the health law's exchange subsidies 
and related spending. CBO's $1.2 trillion estimate for the 
spending associated with exchange subsidies combines a mix of 
both outlays and revenues. Function 550 reflects only the 
savings that would result from repealing the federal-outlay 
portion of this spending. The remaining $100 billion in savings 
is associated with the revenues spent under the new law for 
premium credits. This budget assumes full repeal of all of the 
new health-care law's tax increases as part of comprehensive 
tax reform.
    Other Related Savings: Interactions from repealing other 
associated provisions in the new health-care law save roughly 
$23 billion over 10 years.

                         FUNCTION 570: MEDICARE

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    With the creation of Medicare in 1965, the United States 
made a commitment to help fund the medical care of elderly 
Americans without exhausting their life savings or the assets 
and incomes of their working children and younger relatives. In 
urging the creation of Medicare, President Kennedy said that 
such a program was chiefly needed to protect not the poor, but 
people who had worked for years and suddenly found all their 
savings gone because of a costly health problem.
    But spending for Medicare has grown quickly in recent 
decades--in part because of rising enrollment and in part 
because of rising costs per enrollee--and has reached 
unsustainable rates. Between 1970 and 2012, gross federal 
spending for Medicare rose from 0.7 percent of GDP to 3.7 
percent. Under the alternative fiscal scenario in CBO's latest 
The Long-Term Budget Outlook, mandatory spending on Medicare is 
projected to exceed 7 percent of GDP by 2040 and reach 13 
percent of GDP by 2085. CBO's March baseline projects that 
Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be bankrupt by 
2023.
    Medicare's imbalance threatens beneficiaries' access to 
quality, affordable care. The program's fundamentally flawed 
structure is driving up health-care costs, which are, in turn, 
threatening to bankrupt the system--and ultimately the nation. 
Without reform, the program will end up causing exactly what it 
was created to avoid: millions of America's seniors without 
adequate health security and a younger working generation 
saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that 
cannot be sustained.
    Letting government break its promises to current seniors 
and to future generations is unacceptable. In addition, placing 
Medicare on a sustainable path is an indispensable part of 
restoring the federal government's fiscal balance. The reforms 
outlined in this budget protect and preserve Medicare for those 
in or near retirement, while saving and strengthening the 
program so future generations can count on it when they retire.
    The Medicare program's spending appears in Function 570 of 
the budget resolution. The function reflects the Medicare Part 
A Hospital Insurance Program, Part B Supplementary Medical 
Insurance Program, Part C Medicare Advantage Program, and Part 
D Prescription Drug Benefit, as well as premiums paid by 
qualified aged and disabled beneficiaries.
    The various parts of the program are financed in different 
ways. Part A benefits are financed primarily by a payroll tax 
(currently 2.9 percent of taxable earnings), the revenues from 
which are credited to the HI Trust Fund. For Part B, premiums 
paid by beneficiaries cover about one-quarter of outlays, and 
the Treasury General Fund covers the rest. (Payments to private 
insurance plans under Part C are financed by a blend of funds 
from Parts A and B.) Enrollees' premiums under Part D are set 
to cover about one-quarter of the cost of the basic 
prescription drug benefit, though many low-income enrollees 
receive larger subsidies; general funds cover most of the 
remaining cost.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $515.9 billion in budget authority 
and $515.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. 
Discretionary spending is $6.7 billion in budget authority and 
$6.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Mandatory spending 
in 2014 is $509.3 billion in budget authority and $509.1 
billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority 
and outlays are $6.7 trillion and $6.7 trillion respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The Medicare program attempts to do two things to make sure 
that all seniors have secure, affordable health coverage. 
First, the program pools risk among a specific population of 
Americans, ensuring that seniors enjoy secure access to 
coverage. The policies supported by this budget strengthen and 
enhance this aspect of Medicare so seniors will have more 
health-care choices within the same stabilized risk pool.
    Second, Medicare subsidizes coverage for seniors to ensure 
that coverage is affordable. Affordability is a critical goal, 
but the subsidy structure of Medicare is fundamentally broken 
and drives costs in the wrong direction. The open-ended, blank-
check nature of the Medicare subsidy fuels health-care 
inflation, threatens the solvency of the program, and creates 
inexcusable levels of waste in the system.
    While the committees of jurisdiction will make the final 
determinations on specific Medicare reforms, the options 
described below offer one clear and reliable path toward 
solvency.

                            PREMIUM SUPPORT

    In the Medicare system, the federal government--not the 
patient--is the customer; and the government has been a clumsy, 
ineffective steward of value. Controlling costs in an open-
ended fee-for-service system has proved impossible to do 
without limiting access or sacrificing quality. Over the 
program's entire history, in a vain attempt to get control of 
the waste in the system, Washington has made across-the-board 
payment reductions to providers without regard to quality or 
patient satisfaction. It has not worked. Costs have continued 
to grow, seniors continue to lose access to quality care, and 
the program remains on a path to bankruptcy. Absent reform, 
Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of current seniors 
and future generations.
    Reform aimed at empowering individuals--with a strengthened 
safety net for the poor and the sick--will not only ensure the 
fiscal sustainability of this program, the federal budget, and 
the U.S. economy, but also guarantee that Medicare can fulfill 
the promise of health security for America's seniors.
    The Medicare reform envisioned in this budget resolution 
begins with a commitment to keep the promises made to those who 
now are in or near retirement. Consequently, for those who 
enter the program before 2024, the Medicare program and its 
benefits will remain as they are, without change.
    For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known 
as ``premium support.''
    Starting in 2024, seniors (those who first become eligible 
by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2024) would be given a 
choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional 
fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare 
Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment 
either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by 
the senior, depending on the plan's cost.
    The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a 
list of guaranteed-coverage options, a health plan that best 
suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program. A 
Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, 
directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to 
subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner 
similar to that of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. The 
Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the 
sick would receive higher payments if their conditions 
worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional 
assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier 
seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of 
their premiums. Also starting in 2024, the age of eligibility 
for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with 
Social Security's retirement age.
    This approach to strengthening the Medicare program--which 
is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans--would 
ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the 
future. It would set up a carefully monitored exchange for 
Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the 
Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all 
Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that 
Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive 
coverage.
    While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare 
fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or 
becoming eligible before 2024, all seniors would have the 
choice to opt-in to the new Medicare program once it began in 
2024. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to 
choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health 
security throughout their retirement years. It would also 
expand that freedom to non-retirees by giving certain employers 
the option to offer their employees a free-choice option, 
smoothing the transition from their working years to when 
seniors become Medicare-eligible. This would enable workers to 
devote their employer's health-coverage contribution to the 
purchase a health-insurance plan that works best for them.
    This reform also ensures affordability by fixing the 
currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition 
work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing 
health-care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their 
health-care dollars are spent will force providers to compete 
against each other on price and quality.

            ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM

    A Long-Term ``Doc Fix.'' In recent years, Medicare's 
physician reimbursement formula--the ``sustained growth 
rate''--has threatened steep reductions in payments, leaving 
doctors uncertain about their incomes and, in some cases, 
reluctant to take on additional Medicare patients. Congress has 
patched over the problem numerous times with ad hoc increases 
in reimbursements--a practice known as the ``doc fix.'' These 
measures have become increasingly expensive to taxpayers 
without stabilizing the program. This budget accommodates 
legislation that fixes the Medicare physician-payment formula 
for the next ten years so that Medicare beneficiaries continue 
to have access to health care. It provides for a reimbursement 
system that fairly compensates physicians who treat Medicare 
beneficiaries while providing incentives to improve quality and 
efficiency. The reimbursement reform process should also 
protect seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans from 
premium increases, benefit reductions and loss of coverage 
options that would result from certain assumptions made by the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid with respect to the SGR.
    Ending the Raid on the Medicare Trust Fund. Supporters of 
the 2010 government takeover of health care insisted the law 
would both shore up the Medicare Trust Fund and pay for a new 
health-care entitlement program. In testimony before the 
Committee, Medicare's chief actuary stated the truism that the 
same dollar could not be used twice. This budget calls for 
directing any potential Medicare savings in current law toward 
shoring up Medicare, not paying for new entitlements. The 
budget also urges repeal of the health-care law's new rationing 
board (the Independent Payment Advisory Board), in addition to 
stabilizing plan choices for current seniors.
    Medical-Liability-Insurance Reform. This budget also 
advances common-sense curbs on abusive and frivolous lawsuits. 
Medical lawsuits and excessive verdicts increase health-care 
costs and result in reduced access to care. When mistakes 
happen, patients have a right to fair representation and fair 
compensation. But the current tort-litigation system too often 
serves the interests of lawyers while driving up costs. The 
budget supports several changes to laws governing medical 
liability, including limits on noneconomic and punitive 
damages.
    Means-Testing Premiums for High-Income Seniors. This budget 
also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test 
premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors, 
similar to the President's proposal in his fiscal year 2013 
budget.
                     FUNCTION 600: INCOME SECURITY

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The welfare reforms of the late 1990s are a success story 
of modern domestic policy, but they did not go as far as many 
think. Reformers were not able to extend their work beyond cash 
welfare to other means-tested programs. Notably, programs that 
subsidize food and housing for low-income Americans remain 
dysfunctional, and their explosive growth is threatening the 
overall strength of the safety net. If the government continues 
running trillion-dollar deficits and experiences a debt crisis, 
the poor and vulnerable will undoubtedly be the hardest hit, as 
the federal government's only recourse will be severe, across-
the-board cuts.
    Most of the federal government's income-support programs 
are included in Function 600, Income Security. These include 
general retirement and disability insurance (excluding Social 
Security)--mainly through the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation--and benefits to railroad retirees. Other 
components are federal-employee-retirement and disability 
benefits (including military retirees); unemployment 
compensation; low-income housing assistance, including Section 
8 housing; food and nutrition assistance, including food stamps 
and school-lunch subsidies; and other income security programs.
    This last category includes: Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families, the Government's principal welfare program; 
Supplemental Security Income; spending for the refundable 
portion of the Earned Income Credit; and the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. Agencies administering these 
programs include the Departments of Agriculture, Health and 
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Social 
Security Administration (for SSI), and the Office of Personnel 
Management (for federal-retirement benefits).

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $509.4 billion in budget authority 
and $508.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. 
Discretionary spending is $61.1 billion in budget authority and 
$64 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Mandatory spending 
in 2014 is $448.4 billion in budget authority and $444 billion 
in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority and 
outlays are $4.97 trillion and $4.94 trillion, respectively.
    Although the Committee's recommendation is a disciplined 
budget that will require committees of jurisdiction and 
agencies to set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does 
not take the arbitrary approach that would result in the event 
of a fiscal crisis.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Reforming the federal government's income-security programs 
can both strengthen the safety net and protect taxpayers. Among 
reforms that could be considered by the committees of 
jurisdiction are the following.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Reform Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 
Outreach Funding. This budget assumes that outreach funding for 
the SNAP program is reduced, and the reduction is shifted 
towards programs that facilitate upward mobility, such as 
properly reformed job-training programs.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Block-Grant the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 
Spending on SNAP--formerly known as the Food Stamp Program--has 
increased dramatically over the past three years. SNAP spending 
grew from $20.6 billion in 2002 to nearly $40 billion in 2008, 
and is projected to be over $80 billion in 2013. Although the 
increase between 2008 and 2013 is partially due to the 
recession, SNAP spending is forecast to be permanently higher 
than previous estimates even after employment has recovered. A 
variety of factors are driving this growth, but one major 
reason is that though the States have the responsibility of 
administering the program, they have little incentive to ensure 
it is well run.
    The budget resolution envisions converting SNAP into an 
allotment tailored for each state's low-income population, 
indexed for inflation and eligibility. This option would make 
no changes to SNAP until 2019--after employment has recovered--
providing states with time to structure their own programs. It 
would also envision improving work incentives by requiring a 
certain amount of people to engage in work activity, such as 
job search, community-service activities and education and job 
training. This proposal is estimated to save $125 billion over 
ten years.
    Eliminate Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility. Broad-based 
categorical eligibility allows households to become eligible 
for SNAP by receiving a minimal Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families fund benefit or service. Typically, an individual is 
made eligible by receiving a TANF brochure or being referred to 
a social services ``800'' telephone number. This allows 
individuals to qualify for SNAP benefits under less restrictive 
criteria. For example, 40 states currently have no asset test 
for receiving SNAP benefits.
    Eliminate Abuse of LIHEAP: The Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program provides low-income families with help to 
pay heating bills. However, many states are providing families 
with $1.00 in LIHEAP benefits in order to increase SNAP 
benefits (see ``Categorical Eligibility'' above). This proposal 
would eliminate that abuse.
    Reinstitute Welfare Work Requirements: The Obama 
administration, in contravention of current law, has claimed 
authority to waive the work requirements of the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families program. This budget rescinds any 
authority the Obama administration thinks it has to provide for 
waivers of the work requirement of the TANF program. It assumes 
that President Clinton and the Republican majority at the time 
were correct in requiring robust work requirements for the TANF 
program--which led to the largest sustained reduction in child 
poverty since the onset of the ``Great Society.'' This would 
save $61 million over ten years.
    Reform Civil-Service Pensions. In keeping with a 
recommendation from the National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility, this option calls for federal employees--
including Members of Congress and staff--to make greater 
contributions toward their own retirement. It would also reform 
the ability for individuals to receive a ``special retirement 
supplement,'' which pays federal employees the equivalent of 
their Social Security benefit at an earlier age. As the Office 
of Personnel Management states on its website, this benefit is 
``unique'' to the Federal Employee Retirement System. This 
would achieve significant budgetary savings and also help 
facilitate a transition to a defined-contribution system for 
new federal employees that would give them more control over 
their own retirement security. From a fiscal-responsibility 
standpoint, this option would replace a system that is creating 
unfunded future liabilities for taxpayers with a fully funded 
system: it could save an estimated $132 billion over ten years.
    Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Currently, 
the PBGC faces a $26 billion unfunded liability. Although this 
budget does not assume the President's proposal from 2012, it 
recognizes the need to reform the PBGC to ensure that a future 
taxpayer-funded bailout does not occur. Potential savings could 
total an estimated $950 million over ten years.
    Unemployment Insurance. This budget resolution assumes that 
unemployment-benefit expansions and extended benefits expire as 
scheduled under current law and does not assume another 
extension of emergency unemployment-insurance benefits. The 
previous expansions have increased the potential maximum 
duration of benefits to 79 weeks.
    Reform Supplemental Security Income. Welfare programs 
typically pay benefits on a sliding scale. However, SSI is 
different, paying an average of $600 for each and every child 
in a household who receives benefits. This reform would create 
a sliding scale for children on SSI. Advocates for the disabled 
have expressed support in the past for creating a sliding scale 
for children on SSI. For example, Jonathan Stein--the lead 
advocate attorney in the landmark 1990 Supreme Court Case 
expanding SSI eligibility for children and witness for the 
Democrats at an October 27, 2011 Ways and Means Subcommittee 
hearing on SSI--in 1995 said the following about this proposal: 
``[W]e have a long list of reforms that we do not have time to 
get into, but we would say for very large families there should 
be some sort of family cap or graduated sliding scale of 
benefits.'' Additionally, Congress should review mental-health 
categories in the children's SSI program, which have been the 
fastest-growing categories of eligibility. These reforms could 
save up to $5 billion over ten years.
    Reform Means-Tested Entitlements. Congress should act to 
reform means-tested entitlements. These programs have grown 
rapidly over the past ten years, and Congress should reform 
these programs and begin devolving them to the states. This 
would build upon the historic progress of bipartisan welfare 
reform in the late 1990s. These reforms transformed cash 
welfare by encouraging work, limiting the duration of benefits, 
and giving states more control over how money was being spent. 
The TANF reforms of the old Aid for Families with Dependent 
Children cut welfare caseloads in half as poverty rates 
declined.

                     FUNCTION 650: SOCIAL SECURITY

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    This category consists of the Social Security Program, or 
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. It is the largest 
budget function in terms of outlays and provides funds for the 
government's largest entitlement program. Under provisions of 
the Congressional Budget Act and the Budget Enforcement Act, 
Social Security trust funds are considered to be off budget. 
But a small portion of spending within Function 650--including 
general-fund transfers of taxes paid on Social Security 
benefits--is on budget. Therefore, though the discussion below 
describes both the on-budget and off-budget components, the 
budget resolution itself contains only the on-budget portion.
    Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in 
future benefits. This budget strengthens the program by 
establishing a requirement that policymakers come to the table 
and enact common-sense reforms to keep the program solvent for 
current beneficiaries and make it stronger for future 
generations.
    The President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and 
Reform put forward a proposal in December of 2010 to make 
Social Security sustainably solvent over the 75-year actuarial 
period that is used to measure the soundness of the program--
demonstrating that there is a bipartisan way forward.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    Social Security contains both on-budget and off-budget 
spending--the latter consisting of benefit payments for the 
OASDI program. The budget resolution reflects only the on-
budget spending. In that category, the resolution calls for 
$27.5 billion in budget authority and $27.6 billion in outlays 
in fiscal year 2014. Over ten years, the on-budget totals are 
$421.3 billion in budget authority and $421.6 billion in 
outlays.
    In the off-budget category, the resolution calls for $836.2 
billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2014 and $832.2 
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2014. Over ten years, the 
off-budget totals are $10.85 trillion in budget authority and 
$10.79 trillion in outlays.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                FACING SOCIAL SECURITY'S FISCAL PROBLEM

    An all-too-common reaction to the fiscal problem in Social 
Security has been denial that a problem exists. It is claimed 
that the Social Security Trust Fund will remain solvent for at 
least a decade, at which point the government could 
theoretically cover any shortfall by raising taxes. Others 
downplay the necessity for change, contending that sustained 
economic growth could take care of the problem all by itself.
    Neither is correct. First, any value in the balances in the 
Social Security Trust Fund is derived from dubious government 
accounting. The trust fund is not a real savings account. From 
1983 to 2010, it collected more Social Security taxes than it 
paid out in Social Security benefits. But the government 
borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other 
government programs unrelated to Social Security. The Trust 
Fund holds Treasury securities, but the ability to redeem these 
securities is completely dependent on the Treasury's ability to 
raise money through taxes or borrowing.
    Social Security is currently paying out more in benefits 
than it collected in taxes--in other words, running cash 
deficits--a trend that will worsen as the baby boomers continue 
to retire. To pay full benefits, the government must pay back 
the money it owes Social Security. In testimony before the 
House Budget Committee, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf stated 
that:

          Well, again, Congressman, on a unified budget basis, 
        taking account of just the tax revenues, the dedicated 
        tax revenues, and the benefits, it is contributing [to] 
        the deficit now. If one instead looks at just the 
        balance in the Social Security Trust Fund, that balance 
        is, the annual balance is positive now, but will be 
        negative within about a half dozen years.

    Those who wish to solve this problem by raising taxes 
ignore the profound economic damage that such large tax 
increases would entail. Just lifting the cap on income subject 
to Social Security taxes, as some have proposed, would, when 
combined with the Obama administration's other preferred tax 
policies, lift the top marginal tax rate above 50 percent. Most 
economists agree that raising marginal tax rates that high 
would create a significant drag on economic growth, job 
creation, productivity, and wages.
    Social Security's fragile condition poses a serious problem 
that threatens to break the broader compact in which workers 
support the generation preceding them, and earn the support of 
those who follow.
    There is a bipartisan path forward on Social Security--one 
that requires all parties first to acknowledge the fiscal 
realities of this critical program. The President's Fiscal 
Commission made a positive first step by advancing solutions to 
ensure the solvency of Social Security. They suggested a more 
progressive benefit structure, with benefits for higher-income 
workers growing more slowly than those of workers with lower 
incomes who are more vulnerable to economic shocks in 
retirement. The Commission also recommended reforms that take 
account of increases in longevity, to arrest the demographic 
problems that are undermining Social Security's finances.
    In addition, there is bipartisan consensus that Social 
Security reform should provide more help to those who fall 
below the poverty line after retirement. There is no security 
in a program that is blind to the needs of the nation's most 
vulnerable citizens--lower-income seniors should receive more 
targeted assistance than those who have had ample opportunity 
to save for retirement.
    While certain details of the Commission's Social Security 
proposals, particularly on the tax side, are of debatable 
merit, the Commission undoubtedly made positive steps forward 
on bipartisan solutions to strengthen Social Security. This 
budget seeks to build on the Commission's important work, 
calling on action to solve this pressing problem by requiring 
the President to put forward specific ideas on fixing Social 
Security. The budget also puts the onus on Congress to offer 
legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical 
program. To be clear, nothing in this budget calls for the 
privatization of Social Security.

                          STARTING THE PROCESS

    This budget calls for setting in motion the process of 
reforming Social Security by altering a current-law trigger 
that, in the event that the Social Security program is not 
sustainable, requires the President, in conjunction with the 
Social Security Board of Trustees, to submit a plan for 
restoring balance to the fund. This provision would then 
require congressional leaders to put forward their best ideas 
as well. Although the Committee on Ways and Means would make 
the final determination, this provision would require that:
     If in any year the Board of Trustees of the 
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, in its annual 
Trustees' Report, determines that the 75-year actuarial balance 
of the Social Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the 
annual balance of the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th 
year is in deficit, the Board of Trustees should, no later than 
the 30th of September of the same calendar year, submit to the 
President recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to 
achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive 
annual balance in the 75th year.
     No later than the 1st of December of the same 
calendar year in which the Board of Trustees submits its 
recommendations, the President shall promptly submit 
implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress including 
recommendations necessary to achieve a positive 75-year 
actuarial balance and a positive annual balance in the 75th 
year.
     Within 60 days of the President's submitting 
legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which the 
legislation has been referred shall report the bill, which 
shall be considered by the full House or Senate under expedited 
procedures.
    Again, the aim of this option is to force recognition of 
the need to save Social Security. This procedure offers a first 
step in that direction.

              FUNCTION 700: VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    Function 700 includes funding for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, which provides benefits to veterans who meet 
various eligibility rules. Benefit programs include veterans' 
medical care, disability compensation and pensions, education 
and rehabilitation benefits, and housing programs. Function 700 
also includes other government agencies and programs that serve 
veterans, such as the Department of Labor's Veterans' 
Employment and Training Service, the United States Court of 
Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the American Battle Monuments 
Commission.
    The past two decades have seen extraordinary growth in 
funding for benefits and services for the nation's 22 million 
veterans. Over the past decade, veterans discretionary spending 
(mostly health care) has increased 88 percent, while mandatory 
costs have increased 144 percent, mostly attributable to 
increasing disability compensation and the expansion of 
benefits.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $145.7 billion in budget authority 
and $145.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. 
Discretionary spending is $63.3 billion in budget authority and 
$63.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. This in an 
increase of 3.1 percent from last year's discretionary level. 
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $82.4 billion in budget authority 
and $82.3 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $1.7 trillion and $1.7 trillion, 
respectively.
    This resolution also authorizes up to $55.483 billion for 
fiscal year 2015 in advance appropriations for medical care, 
consistent with the Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform 
Transparency Act of 2009. Since the President has yet to submit 
a budget request this year, the VA's request for veterans-
medical-care advance appropriations for fiscal year 2015 is 
unavailable as of the writing of this concurrent resolution. 
The amount authorized in this resolution reflects the amount 
requested in the administration's fiscal year 2013 request for 
fiscal year 2015 and is the most up-to-date estimate on 
veterans' health-care needs requested by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
    This budget fully funds the nation's commitment to the 
services and benefits earned by veterans through their selfless 
military service. Veterans are, and will remain, the highest 
priority within this budget.
    While the Committee does not assume any savings in Function 
700, it notes the bipartisan support for certain mandatory 
savings proposals. These proposals include:
    COLA Round-Down. This savings proposal would extend current 
law and calls for rounding down to the nearest dollar the 
annual cost of living adjustment for veterans' disability 
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation. This 
option was included in a bipartisan letter from the leadership 
of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees to the 
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in 2011. This minor 
adjustment to compensation payments would have little impact on 
veterans and was also included in the President's fiscal year 
2013 budget request.
    Slow the Growth in VA Contributions Toward Increasing 
Tuition Rates. Veteran-education benefits became significantly 
more generous following the 2008 passage of the Post-9/11 G.I. 
Bill. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill covers veterans' tuition, fees, 
and textbook costs, in addition to providing a monthly tax-free 
living stipend. The rapidly increasing average cost of tuition 
nationwide--about 6 percent per year--is causing unexpected and 
considerable increases in education-benefit spending.
    Furthermore, there is strong evidence that uncapped federal 
assistance to students for higher education--both for veterans 
and for other populations--is enabling the rapid rise of 
tuition costs. As higher-education analyst Art Hauptman has 
written, ``It is difficult to believe that colleges and 
universities could have increased their charges so rapidly over 
time without the ready availability of students' ability to 
borrow.''
    Both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees 
proposed to the JSCDR that capping the annual increase in 
tuition support at 3 percent would lead to substantial savings 
and, by no longer enabling rapidly rising tuition, would not 
adversely impact veterans.

                FUNCTION 750: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The Administration of Justice function consists of federal 
law-enforcement programs, litigation and judicial activities, 
correctional operations, and state- and local-justice 
assistance. Activities funded within this function include: the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement 
Administration; border and transportation security; the Bureau 
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the United States 
Attorneys; legal divisions within the Department of Justice; 
the Legal Services Corporation; the Federal Judiciary; and the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons. This function also includes several 
components of the Department of Homeland Security.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $51.9 billion in budget authority 
and $53.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary 
spending is $50.4 billion in budget authority and $51.8 billion 
in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Mandatory spending in 2014 is 
$1.6 billion in budget authority and $1.6 billion in outlays. 
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $607.4 
billion and $608.1 billion, respectively.
    According to the Government Accountability Office, since 
fiscal year 2005, over $30 billion has been disbursed to more 
than 200 DOJ programs authorized through three sources: 
Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office of Justice 
Programs, and the Office on Violence Against Women. The GAO has 
determined that many of these grants--several of which have 
been used to fund recreational activities, fashion shows, pool 
parties, and even doughnut-eating contests--could be viewed as 
wasteful, overlapping, and duplicative.
    With the risk of terrorism as well as a tidal wave of debt, 
federal taxpayer money for the Department of Justice should be 
focused on administering justice, arresting and prosecuting 
terrorists, investigating crimes, and seeking punishment for 
those guilty of unlawful behavior. It is the responsibility of 
the states and communities to determine the best course of 
action in deterring crime. The budget focuses on funding core 
government responsibilities and reducing duplication, excess, 
and unnecessary spending.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    As elsewhere, the committees of jurisdiction will make 
final policy determinations. The proposals below indicate 
policy options that might be considered.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Consolidate Justice Grants. In 2010, DOJ awarded nearly 
$3.9 billion in grants, including $4.0 billion provided in the 
2009 stimulus bill. The Congressional Research Service and GAO 
identified overlap and duplication within many of these grant 
programs. CRS suggested ``possible policy options could include 
altering the current grant programs to target funding for 
specific activities in each grant program or consolidating the 
different grant programs into one large program.'' In addition, 
these grant programs address law-enforcement issues that are 
primarily state and local responsibilities. This option 
streamlines grants into three categories--first responder, law 
enforcement, and victims--while eliminating waste, 
inefficiency, and bureaucracy.
    Eliminate Unnecessary Headquarters Funding for DHS, DOJ, 
and Judiciary. Underperforming IT projects, representational 
fees for receptions, and new construction funds should be 
reduced in agency headquarters' management and operations 
programs. The budget recommends additional scrutiny of cost 
overruns of DHS's St. Elizabeths project, the largest federal 
building project in DC since the Pentagon.

                    FUNCTION 800: GENERAL GOVERNMENT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    General government consists of the activities of the 
legislative branch; the Executive Office of the President; 
general tax administration and fiscal operations of the 
Department of the Treasury (including the Internal Revenue 
Service); the Office of Personnel Management, and the real-
property and personnel costs of the General Services 
Administration; general-purpose fiscal assistance to states, 
localities, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories; and 
other general government activities.
    Several programs in general government have seen steady 
growth since 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
increased the General Services Administration's budget by $5.8 
billion, for example.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $23.2 billion in budget authority 
and $24.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that 
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $16.9 
billion in budget authority and $17.4 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $6.4 billion in budget authority 
and $6.8 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $252.3 billion and $247.4 billion, 
respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The resolution aims to eliminate identified waste across 
all federal-government branches and agencies. federal pay, 
benefits, and mismanagement of properties are just a few areas 
where savings should be achieved. Although the committees of 
jurisdiction will determine the actual policies in pursuit of 
these goals, the options below offer several potential 
approaches.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Adopt ``YouCut'' Proposals. The budget also incorporates 
several of the House Republican ``YouCut'' proposals introduced 
during the 111th and 112th Congresses. One example in Function 
800 is the elimination of the Presidential Election Campaign 
Fund, which saves $300 million over ten years.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Freeze New Construction. In fiscal year 2010, the 
government owned 77,700 properties which were either 
underutilized or not utilized at all--at a cost of $1.7 
billion. This budget calls for a freeze on new construction for 
a one-year period.
    Decrease Costs of the Government Printing Office by 
Increasing the Use of Electronic Copies. The GPO prints 
thousands upon thousands of pages of government documents each 
year. However, the online presence of this material has become 
ubiquitous. This resolution supports policy that guides the GPO 
to print materials on a more selective basis, allowing users to 
rely more heavily on increased electronic access to materials.
    Terminate the Election Assistance Commission. This 
independent agency was created in 2002 as part of the Help 
America Vote Act to provide grants to states to modernize 
voting equipment. Its mission has been fulfilled. Even the 
National Association of Secretaries of State has passed 
resolutions stating that the EAC has served its purpose and 
funding is no longer necessary. The EAC should be eliminated 
and any valuable, residual functions transferred to the Federal 
Election Commission.
    Accompany Pro-Growth Tax Reform with Responsible Reductions 
to the Internal Revenue Service. Changes in the tax code are 
occurring at a rate of approximately one a day, and the 
Internal Revenue Code now contains approximately 4 million 
words. Each year, taxpayers and businesses spend an 
unbelievable 6 billion hours complying with filing 
requirements. This resolution calls for simplifying the 
burdensome tax code, naturally reducing the agency's size by 
promoting policies that lead to less reliance on the IRS.

                       FUNCTION 900: NET INTEREST

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    An adverse effect of chronic budget deficits is the high 
interest cost it produces. Interest payments result in no 
government services or benefits; they are simply excess costs 
resulting from a history of spending beyond the government's 
means. These costs are reflected in Function 900, which 
presents the interest paid for the federal government's 
borrowing less the interest received by the federal government 
from trust-fund investments and loans to the public. It is a 
mandatory payment, with no discretionary components.
    For the past four years, the federal government has run 
deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and despite some 
discretionary-spending reductions since the beginning of the 
112th Congress, the federal budget is on track for another year 
to run an abnormally high deficit. Because much of the federal 
government's spending is so deeply entrenched, reducing the 
associated interest costs will require sustained spending 
restraint. This budget resolution does so--and it reduces net 
interest by $869 billion over ten years compared with the CBO 
baseline.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $242 billion in mandatory budget 
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2014. The ten-year totals 
for budget authority and outlays are $4.5 trillion.
    On-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are $341 
billion in fiscal year 2014 and $5.6 trillion over ten years. 
The on-budget figures are larger than the function totals 
because the former are offset by off-budget interest payments 
to the Social Security Trust Fund, which are reflected as 
negative numbers.
    Off-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are 
-$98.7 billion in fiscal year 2014, and -$1.0 trillion over ten 
years.

                        FUNCTION 920: ALLOWANCES

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    Function 920 is a category called ``allowances'' that 
represents a place-holder for any budgetary impacts that the 
Congressional Budget Office has yet to assign to a specific 
budget function. CBO typically reassigns the budgetary effects 
of any legislation enacted within Function 920 once a new 
baseline update is released.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    In August 2011, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 
2011 (P.L. 112-25) that provided for significant spending 
reductions enforced by statutory spending caps and an automatic 
enforcement procedure. The BCA did not specify a distribution 
of spending reductions in specific budget functions other than 
for defense (Function 050) and Medicare (Function 570), even 
though the law does require reductions in non-defense and non-
Medicare areas of the budget. At the time that the February 
2013 baseline was released, CBO did not provide function-level 
information on what non-defense and non-Medicare reductions are 
under the terms of the BCA. CBO has, instead, assigned the non-
defense and non-Medicare reductions required by the BCA to 
Function 920.
    This budget resolution makes no changes in this function, 
leaving it instead at the CBO baseline levels.
    The CBO baseline for Function 920 includes a total of 
$771.1 billion and $712.3 billion in reductions for budget 
authority and outlays, respectively, to reflect the impact of 
the BCA on non-defense and non-Medicare spending. The following 
four components are included in the baseline:
    1. A $354 billion and $315 billion reduction in non-defense 
budget authority and outlays, respectively, needed to comply 
with the discretionary spending caps set by the BCA in section 
101.
    2. An additional $348 billion and $335 billion reduction in 
total non-defense budget authority and outlays, respectively, 
needed to comply with the automatic-sequester provision and 
revised discretionary-spending caps under Section 302 of the 
BCA.
    3. A $29 billion and $21 billion reduction in discretionary 
budget authority and outlays, respectively, for disaster-
relief-designated spending not subject to the BCA spending 
caps. Under CBO's normal scoring conventions, the discretionary 
baseline reflects the most recently enacted discretionary level 
adjusted for inflation in the out years. Section 251(b)(2)(D) 
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as 
amended by the BCA, however, limits upward adjustments in 
spending limits for disaster-relief-designated spending to the 
ten-year rolling average of previous disaster-relief-designated 
spending (excluding the highest and lowest years in calculating 
that average). CBO has estimated that a discretionary baseline 
carrying an inflated level of disaster spending, as provided 
for in the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (P.L. 
112-175), would result in disaster-relief spending levels 
greater than the rolling-average limit set forth in the BCA. 
Therefore, CBO has added a downward adjustment in Function 920 
to reduce disaster relief-designated spending in its baseline 
to comply with the BCA limit.
    4. A $40 billion reduction in both budget authority and 
outlays to non-Medicare and non-defense mandatory programs 
necessary to comply with the terms of the BCA.

                 FUNCTION 930: GOVERNMENT-WIDE SAVINGS

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    Function 930 includes various policies that produce 
government-wide savings in multiple budget functions rather 
than in single, specific budget functions. The resolution calls 
for savings of $9.4 billion in budget authority and $6.6 
billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014, all of which are 
discretionary. The ten-year totals for budget authority and 
outlay savings are $155.6 billion and $47.1 billion, 
respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Federal-Employee Attrition. The budget includes 
discretionary savings by assuming a reduction in the federal 
civilian workforce through attrition, whereby the 
administration would be permitted to hire one employee for 
every three that leave government service. National-security 
positions would be subject to exemption.
    Elimination of Student-Loan Repayment for Government 
Employees. The budget assumes discretionary savings by 
eliminating the repayment by the government of student loans 
for federal employees.
    Reduce Appropriations Consistent with Equalizing Federal 
Agency and Employee Contributions to Defined-Benefit Retirement 
Plans: The policy described in the Income Security chapter of 
this report would increase the share of federal retirement 
benefits funded by the employee. This policy has the effect of 
reducing the personnel costs for the employing agency. The 
budget assumes savings from a reduction in agency 
appropriations associated with the reduction in payments that 
agencies make into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 
Fund for federal employee retirement.

            FUNCTION 950: UNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This function consists of offsetting receipts to the 
Treasury, which are recorded as negative budget authority and 
outlays. Receipts recorded in this function are either intra-
budgetary (a payment from one federal agency to another, such 
as agency payments to the retirement trust funds) or 
proprietary (a payment from the public for some kind of 
business transaction with the government). The main types of 
receipts recorded in this function are the payments federal 
employees and agencies make to employee retirement trust funds; 
payments made by companies for the right to explore and produce 
oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf; and payments by 
those who bid for the right to buy or use public property or 
resources, such as the electromagnetic spectrum. The function 
also contains an off-budget component that reflects the federal 
government's share of Social Security contributions for federal 
employees.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    All transactions within function 950 are recorded as 
mandatory. The resolution calls for -$92.3 billion in budget 
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2014 (with the minus sign 
indicating receipts into the Treasury). Over ten years, budget 
authority and outlays total -$1.2 trillion.
    On-budget amounts are -$75.9 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2014, and -$957 billion in budget 
authority and outlays over ten years.
    Off-budget amounts are -$16.3 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2014, and -$195 billion in budget 
authority and outlays over ten years.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Federal Fleet Sales. The President's Fiscal Commission 
recommended several ways to achieve savings. This resolution 
adopts many of their proposals, such as reducing the federal 
auto fleet by 20 percent, excluding the Department of Defense 
and the U.S. Postal Service. In 2010, the federal government 
reported a worldwide inventory of more than 662,000 vehicles 
and spent $4.6 billion on its fleet. In addition, the 2009 
stimulus bill provided $300 million to ``green the Federal 
fleet'' by purchasing 17,205 vehicles.
    This resolution builds on the Fiscal Commission's 
recommendation by proposing to sell a portion of the federal 
fleet to reduce the deficit and to get rid of unneeded 
vehicles, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Federal Real-Property Sales. The Fiscal Commission 
highlighted potential budget savings from another area where 
the mismanagement of taxpayer-owned assets and sheer amount of 
waste are staggering: federal real estate and other property. 
The federal real-property inventory is so massive that the 
report accounting for it lags two years behind the current 
budget year. The most recent General Services Administration's 
Federal Real Property Report is from fiscal year 2010 and 
summarizes data from 2009. With such large timing differences 
and accompanying confusion, there is very little incentive for 
agencies to dispose of unneeded properties and very few 
repercussions from holding onto these properties indefinitely. 
The federal government owns, leases, or manages 1.1 million 
properties nationwide. Of those, non-defense buildings 
accounted for at least 400,000 of the total. Yet the 
government's track record for real-estate asset sales has been 
poor.
    In 2009, federal agencies received only about $50 million 
in proceeds from the sale of 2,228 assets--an average of 
$22,500 per property. Many buildings were simply given away as 
below-market-value bargains or even for free. On top of that, 
agencies reported spending $150 million in 2009 on the 
operating costs alone of unneeded properties waiting to either 
be sold or disposed.
    The Committee urges the Office of Management and Budget to 
pursue streamlining the asset-sale process; loosening 
regulations for the disposal and sale of federal property to 
eliminate red tape and waste; setting enforceable targets for 
asset sales; and holding government agencies accountable for 
the buildings they oversee. If done correctly, taxpayers can 
recoup billions of dollars from selling unused government 
property.
    Federal Land. Currently, the federal government owns 650 
million acres of land--almost 30 percent of the land area of 
the United States. In addition to federal-fleet and real-
property sales, this resolution supports examining federal land 
to see where cost savings can be achieved by selling unneeded 
acreage in the open market--excluding National Parks, 
wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers.
    When the federal government holds lands that do not serve a 
public purpose, it takes these lands and the potential private-
sector activity out of the federal, state, and local tax base. 
The savings in this function only display the proceeds from 
assets sales.

 FUNCTION 970: OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This function includes funding for the prosecution of 
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism and 
other closely related activities.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    This resolution calls for $93 billion in budget authority 
and $46.6 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2014. These 
amounts are House Budget Committee staff estimates of the 
budgetary resources necessary to fulfill the President's 
announced war policy. This function accommodates all of the 
funding requested by the Department of Defense for military 
operations and by the Department of State for the incremental, 
non-enduring civilian activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 
Iraq. The funding budgeted in this function is not to be used 
as a reserve fund for other non-war activities.
    Because the President has yet to submit his budget request, 
this resolution was written without the benefit of the 
estimates of the Departments of Defense and State as to the 
costs of executing the ongoing war on terrorism. The levels 
recommended here reflect staff estimates based on the 
President's announced plans. Authority is provided in the 
resolution to adjust these levels as necessary to ensure that 
the war effort is fully funded.
    Defense Activities. Given the complete withdrawal of U.S. 
military forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, any funding from 
this function for Iraq is solely for the purpose of providing 
security assistance and cooperation with Iraqi security forces. 
As the U.S.-Iraq relationship transitions to a more normal 
state-to-state relationship, the funding for these activities 
should also transition to the base budget. It is the 
Committee's expectation that these activities will not be 
funded on a permanent basis outside the appropriate agency 
budgets.
    For Afghanistan, this budget assumes implementation of the 
34,000 troop drawdown announced by the President in his State 
of the Union address. This implies a troop level of 31,000 
troops for the majority of fiscal year 2014. After the Afghan 
elections in the spring of 2014, it is expected that there will 
be further troop withdrawals during the balance of 2014. Then-
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently stated that the 
mission for U.S. forces will be primarily a support role in 
2014, while Afghan forces take the lead on security.
    Although the combat mission in Afghanistan is expected to 
end in 2014, a recent report from the Department of Defense 
states that the insurgency retains a significant regenerative 
capacity. This budget accounts for the uncertainty of war by 
allowing for an appropriate troop level throughout the 
drawdown, enabling U.S. forces to pursue the remaining threats 
in Afghanistan. The previous administration did not include the 
full budgetary cost of the war beyond the current year, much 
less subsequent years. Until there is a more definitive 
estimate of the resources needed for subsequent years, this 
resolution includes placeholder funding of $35 billion annually 
beyond 2014.
Civilian Activities
    This function also includes funding for the activities of 
civilian agencies--primarily the State Department and the U.S. 
Agency for International Development--as part of the integrated 
civil-military strategy for securing American objectives in the 
frontline states.
    In 2013, $2.3 billion was requested for use for the 
civilian presence in Iraq for ongoing operations that support 
America's diplomatic platform in a high-threat environment. 
This budget assumes a transition to base budget funds of any 
continuing aid to Iraq (or a transition to Iraq self-funding) 
in future years.
    For Afghanistan, this budget assumes continued U.S. 
civilian-led efforts to transfer security and governance 
responsibilities to the Afghans, in addition to providing 
foreign-assistance programs that promote economic development 
and improve governance capacity. This budget also includes 
funding for counternarcotics and criminal-justice programs. All 
of these efforts are in support of the U.S. counterinsurgency 
strategy in Afghanistan.
    In order to succeed in Afghanistan, the United States must 
continue partnering with Pakistan to counter the spread of 
extremism, which threatens America and the world. Funding in 
this function for FY 2014 is anticipated for the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which builds the capacity of 
Pakistan's security forces to effectively combat terrorism 
within its borders.

                                REVENUE

                              ----------                              


    Of the federal government's many intrusions into our lives, 
the biggest is the tax code. Taxes are a fact of life. But 
every dollar taxed is a dollar taken from a family, a worker, a 
business, or an investor. So government must take only what it 
needs and no more. Mindful of this responsibility, this budget 
calls for a tax code that is simple, competitive, and fair--
because the current code fails on all three counts.
Challenge
    Complex: Our current code is a Rubik's cube that taxpayers 
spend precious time--and money--trying to crack. Since its 
inception in 1913, the tax code has grown from roughly 400 
pages in length to over 70,000. Since 2001, the code has 
undergone almost 5,000 changes--more than one per day. As a 
result, Americans spend 6 billion hours each year complying 
with the code. About 60 percent pay other people to prepare 
their tax returns. Another 30 percent use software, like Turbo 
Tax. The average fee for an individual return is about $230, 
while small businesses pay between $500 and $700 for help with 
their forms. In return, the total cost of compliance is over 
$160 billion per year--or 14 percent of all tax receipts. 
That's roughly three times the amount we spend on 
pharmaceutical research and development.
    Unfair: Riddled with loopholes and carve-outs, the code 
rewards the well-connected at the expense of the people. These 
so-called tax preferences add up to over $1 trillion a year--
just under the total revenue the income tax collects. These 
loopholes are unfair for two reasons: First, because the income 
tax is progressive, upper-income individuals disproportionately 
benefit from them. For example, the top 1 percent of taxpayers 
reaps three times as much benefit from tax preferences 
(excluding refundable credits) as middle-income earners. 
Second, by poking holes in the tax base, Congress must raise 
tax rates to make up for lost revenue.
    Uncompetitive: The current code's greatest flaw is that it 
hurts economic growth. By taking a bigger bite out of each 
extra dollar a person makes, the code discourages expansion. At 
some point the benefit of expanding an enterprise--or working 
an extra hour--isn't worth the cost. And when businesses come 
to that conclusion, the entire community suffers from the loss 
in jobs and opportunity. The job-killing taxes from the 
President's health-care law are an example of this.
    This flaw extends to the corporate tax. Including state and 
local taxes, the U.S. has the highest statutory corporate-tax 
rate in the world at 39.2 percent--a huge competitive 
disadvantage. Our rate is over ten percentage points higher 
than the average rate of 27.8 percent among industrialized 
countries.\1\ And though the corporate tax raises relatively 
little revenue--about 10 percent of federal receipts--its 
economic costs are large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the U.S. suffers from an outdated system. Most 
countries have a ``territorial'' system, in which businesses 
pay taxes only to the country where they earn the income. The 
U.S., on the other hand, has a ``worldwide'' system, in which 
businesses pay taxes not only to the host country but also to 
the U.S. when they repatriate profits. In other words, they are 
taxed twice. This system discourages businesses from investing 
overseas profits in the U.S., costing us jobs and wage growth. 
The CBO has found that ``domestic labor bears slightly more 
than 70 percent of the burden'' of the corporate income tax.
    In all three of these areas, the tax code is doing 
significantly more harm than necessary.
Solution: Pro-Growth Tax Reform
     Consolidate income-tax rates to 10 and 25 percent.
     Lower the corporate rate to 25 percent.
     Broaden the tax base by closing loopholes.
     Adopt a ``territorial'' system of taxation.
    This budget builds off work by House Ways and Means 
Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan.\2\ It paves the way 
for a tax system that will improve the lives of working 
families. They deserve a tax code that is simple, efficient, 
and fair. They deserve an end to the confusion and 
complications. They deserve a level playing field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See also, following this section of the report, a letter from 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The tax reform framework outlined by the House Ways and 
Means Committee sets up the goal of collapsing the income tax's 
seven brackets into two and closes the loopholes and carve-outs 
for special interests. It begins with full repeal of the job-
killing taxes in the President's health-care law. It promotes 
growth by letting people keep more of their money to save and 
invest. And it restores fairness by treating all taxpayers 
equally.
    House Republicans have succeeded in shifting the 
conversation on tax reform. There is significant bipartisan 
agreement between both parties that we should lower rates and 
broaden the base. The President and many of his party's leaders 
have unfortunately chosen to exclude themselves from this 
consensus, using additional revenue to fuel more spending 
instead of spur economic growth. This budget understands the 
purpose of tax reform is to improve the well-being of the 
people, not to fund the growth of government bureaucracy.
    Economists have shown that lowering overall rates and 
broadening the tax base will promote economic growth and 
support job creation by the private sector. There are many good 
ideas on that front--growth-oriented tax plans that could 
strengthen the economy and support the nation's funding 
priorities. Congressman Woodall, for instance, has submitted a 
fundamental tax-reform plan for consideration by the Ways and 
Means Committee that would eliminate taxes on wages, 
corporations, self-employment, capital gains, and gift and 
death taxes in favor of a personal consumption tax that would 
provide the economic certainty that American businesses, 
entrepreneurs, and taxpayers desire. Congress should consider 
this and the full myriad of pro-growth plans as it moves toward 
tax reform.

                   COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS LETTER

                              ----------                              


                         WAYS AND MEANS LETTER

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                     Washington, DC, March 6, 2013.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on Budget,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Chairman Ryan: Since the start of the 112th Congress, the 
Ways & Means Committee has engaged in an aggressive effort to 
develop comprehensive tax reform legislation--with over 20 
hearings, three joint hearings with the Senate Finance 
Committee (unprecedented on tax issues in the past 70 years), 
the release of two discussion drafts (on international taxation 
and financial products), and the establishment of 11 bipartisan 
working groups. The Committee intends to build on that work in 
the first session of the 113th Congress by introducing and 
reporting to the House of Representatives legislation that 
provides for the comprehensive reform of the U.S. tax code. Our 
ultimate goal remains enactment of comprehensive tax reform 
during fiscal year 2014.
    With American families continuing to struggle through high 
rates of joblessness, stagnating wages, and weak economic 
growth, it is critical that Congress respond to the calls from 
bipartisan experts for comprehensive tax reform that would 
achieve two critical goals:
          1) A simpler and fairer tax code for families and 
        employers, and
          2) Higher wages, more job creation and greater 
        investment stemming from lower tax rates for 
        individuals and businesses of all sizes.
    To this end, the Committee intends to develop comprehensive 
tax reform legislation that makes the tax code fairer and more 
accountable to hardworking Americans by scaling back tax 
preferences that distort economic behavior and that often 
benefit only a narrow group of individuals or businesses. The 
Committee will then use the resulting revenue to: (1) simplify 
the tax code and (2) spur job creation and income growth 
through lower tax rates and transition to a more modern and 
competitive system of international taxation. Such an effort 
would lead to a stronger economy, which would create more 
American jobs and higher wages. More employment and higher 
wages would lead to higher tax revenues which would 
simultaneously address both the nation's economic and fiscal 
problems.
    While the Committee is committed to tax reform that 
strengthens the economy, the Committee will continue to oppose 
any and all efforts to increase tax revenues by any means other 
than through economic growth. As the Congressional Budget 
Office projects, the amount of taxes the government will take 
from American families and businesses will double over the next 
ten years. Clearly, Washington does not have a revenue problem.
    America, however, does have an economic problem, in large 
part due to our outdated, broken tax code. While the vast 
majority of our foreign competitors have moved aggressively to 
lower corporate tax rates and update their international tax 
systems, the United States imposes the highest combined 
federal-state corporate tax rate in the industrialized world 
and relies on an outdated international tax regime designed 
more than 50 years ago, when the United States faced virtually 
no global competition. Furthermore, the top U.S. tax rate on 
small business income is 44.6 percent, the top tax rate on 
individuals' wages and salaries is 44 percent and the total tax 
on investment income (capital gains and dividends) in the 
United States is 55 percent.
    American families and small businesses must navigate a maze 
of different statutory tax rates, hidden rates, confusing 
deductions, credits, limitations, phase-outs and the 
Alternative Minimum Tax. The trifecta of (1) maddening 
complexity, (2) high tax rates on business income, and (3) the 
prevalence of double taxation of capital and investment, all 
combine to suppress innovation, job creation, and economic 
growth.
    American families and businesses spend over $160 billion 
and 6 billion hours every year trying to figure out their 
taxes. Roughly 90 percent of Americans are forced to pay for 
commercial tax preparation software or hire a tax professional 
just to file their taxes. Even after all that, average 
taxpayers are left to wonder whether someone with the resources 
to hire a better accountant managed to get a ``better deal'' 
out of the tax system.
    Furthermore, American corporations engage in elaborate tax 
planning because the current tax code puts them at a 
competitive disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors. 
Here too the tax code is unfair as some companies are able to 
use arcane and complex provisions of the tax code to reduce 
their tax burden compared to their competitors. Companies 
engage in complex transactions purely to reduce their tax 
burden even when these schemes divert resources from more 
productive investments.
    These conditions necessitate that Congress tmdertake a 
comprehensive rewrite of the tax code. Therefore, the Committee 
requests that you include in the House's FY14 Budget Resolution 
the authority for the Chairman of the Budget Committee to 
adjust allocations and aggregates to provide for floor 
consideration of legislation providing for the comprehensive 
reform of the tax code that:
           Simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to 
        American families and businesses and reduces the amount 
        of time and resources necessary to comply with tax 
        laws,
           Substantially lowers tax rates for 
        individuals with a goal of achieving a two rate 
        structure of 10 and 25 percent.
           Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
           Reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, 
        and
           Transitions the tax code to a more 
        competitive system of international taxation.
    In 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited a stagnant 
economy and a tax code that featured 16 brackets, with a top 
rate of 70 percent. When he left office in 1989, the tax code 
had been simplified down to just three brackets, with a top 
rate of 28 percent, President Reagan's bipartisan tax reforms 
proved to be a cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom 
that occurred in the decade during his presidency and continued 
in the decade that followed.
    It is time to reclaim the Reagan legacy of enacting 
fundamental tax reform in an era of divided government. By 
making the tax code simpler and fairer, we can begin to regain 
the trust of the American people that Washington can and is 
working for them. By making the tax code more conducive to 
innovation, investment and sustained job creation, we can 
safeguard the American Dream for generations to come.
            Sincerely,
                    DAVE CAMP, Chairman; Sam Johnson; Devin Nunes; Dave 
                            G. Reichert; Peter J. Roskam; Kevin Brady; 
                            Pat Tiberi; Charles W. Boustany, Jr.; Jim 
                            Gerlach; Tom Price; Adrian Smith; Lynn 
                            Jenkins; Kenny Marchant; Tom Reed; Mike 
                            Kelly; Jim Renacci; Vern Buchanan; Aaron 
                            Schock; Erik Paulsen; Diane Black; Todd 
                            Young; Tim Griffin.

                   DIRECT SPENDING TRENDS AND REFORMS

                              ----------                              


                               Background

    Direct spending (also known as mandatory spending) remains 
the fastest growing part of the spending-driven debt crisis the 
nation faces. As part of the rules of the 113th Congress, the 
House adopted a new reform to require the budget resolution to 
display certain information on direct spending, split between 
those programs that are means-tested and all other programs.
    CBO reports that total non-interest mandatory spending in 
FY2012 was slightly over $2 trillion, and will grow to over 
$3.6 trillion by 2023, reflecting an average annual growth rate 
of 5.5 percent--much faster than both CBO's projection of 2013 
nominal economic growth of 2.9 percent and CBO's longer-term 
projection of economic growth of 4.3 percent. Within overall 
non-interest mandatory spending, the entitlements of Medicare 
and Social Security are projected to continue growing much 
faster than the economy as a whole, with Social Security 
expected to grow from $768 billion in 2012 to $1,423 billion in 
2023 and Medicare expected to grow from $466 billion in 2012 to 
$903 billion.
    Over the next decade, the major means-tested entitlements 
are expected to grow by 6.2 percent per year--from $644 billion 
in 2014 to $1,075 billion in 2023. Not only are these programs 
expected to grow in the future, but they have grown 
significantly over the past 40 years. The Congressional 
Research Service calculated that spending on low-income 
assistance programs was $2.66 billion in today's dollars in 
1962, or approximately 2.6 percent of total federal outlays and 
.5 percent of GDP. Just over the past ten years, major means-
tested entitlement programs have grown 6.7 percent per year, 
from $309 billion in 2003 to $550 billion in 2012.
    There are a number of reasons for this growth. Most 
recently, the recession caused a significant amount of growth 
in spending on low-income programs. This spending is expected 
to recede as economic growth picks up. However, spending 
remains at elevated levels for several programs--most notably, 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP 
(formerly known as food stamps).Over the past ten years, the 
SNAP program grew at 12.5 percent annually, ballooning the 
program from one that cost $25 billion in 2003, to one that 
cost $80 billion 2012. While this amount is projected to fall 
over the next ten years, it remains at elevated levels compared 
to prerecession projections. There are a number of reasons for 
the continued growth in SNAP outside of the recent economic 
downturn and subsequent slow recovery. Both the 2002 and 2008 
Farm Bill's included several programmatic expansions to 
benefits and eligibility. More importantly however, two changes 
allowing state governments to game the eligibility and benefit 
process have greatly expanded the program. The first, 
categorical eligibility, allows states to make an individual 
automatically eligible for SNAP benefits, regardless of the 
traditional SNAP eligibility criteria if they receive a non-
cash benefit from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF) program. The intent behind categorical eligibility is to 
simplify the process for both the applicant and the 
administering agency. However, as states have expanded the use 
of this procedure into non-cash services, it has vastly 
increased the amount of individuals on the SNAP program.
    Second, states have begun exploiting a loophole referred to 
as ``heat and eat.'' Because of quirk in the law governing SNAP 
benefits, states have been providing individuals with $1 or $5 
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program checks in order to 
artificially increase their SNAP benefit checks.
    Other programs have also seen large increases. The 
Supplemental Security Income was created as a needs-based 
program that provides cash benefits to aged, blind, or disabled 
persons with limited income and assets. When the program began, 
the majority of payments went toward the aged; however, as the 
program matured, a much greater percentage of beneficiaries 
were under age 18 or between the ages of 18-64. Between 1990 
and 2010, the amount of recipients under the age of 18 
increased from 308 thousand to 1.2 million--an increase of 
nearly 300 percent. During the same period, recipients aged 18-
64 increased 89 percent, while those aged 65 or more decreased. 
Over the past decade, spending on SSI has grown by 5% per year.
    The largest means-tested program in the federal budget is 
Medicaid, the federal-state low-income health program. 
Medicaid--and its related Children's Health Insurance Program--
has grown from 1.2 percent of GDP in 2000 to 1.7 percent of GDP 
in 2012. Going forward, CBO projects federal Medicaid spending 
to more than double over the next ten years, from $265 billion 
in fiscal year 2013 to $572 billion in fiscal year 2023. The 
primary reason for this significant spending growth is the 
President's health-care law, which calls for major expansions 
in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. The President's 
health-care law, however, does nothing to remedy Medicaid's 
perverse funding structure that gives states incentives to 
expand, not save, nor does it alter the access issues facing 
beneficiaries as providers refuse to participate in a system 
that severely under-reimburses their services. Absent reform, 
Medicaid will not be able to deliver on its promise to provide 
a sturdy health-care safety net for society's most vulnerable. 
Because of the flawed incentives in this program, it grew at 
5.1 percent a year over the past ten years, and is projected to 
grow at an astounding 8.0 percent a year over the next ten 
years. This level of growth is clearly unsustainable.

                            FY 2014 BUDGET 

    The FY2014 Budget addresses both non-means-tested and 
means-tested direct spending. Most importantly, it addresses 
the drivers of our debt and deficits: our health programs. For 
Medicare, this budget advances policies to put seniors, not the 
federal government, in control of their health-care decisions. 
Those in or near retirement would see no changes, while future 
retirees would be given a choice of private plans competing 
alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program on a 
newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a 
premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium 
of the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost. 
The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that 
the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions 
worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional 
assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier 
seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of 
their premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how their health-
care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against 
each other on price and quality. This market competition will 
act as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing 
health-care costs.
    For Medicaid, this budget converts the federal share of 
Medicaid spending into an allotment tailored to meet each 
State's needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. 
Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all 
approach that has tied the hands of state governments. Instead, 
each state would have the freedom and flexibility and to tailor 
a Medicaid program that fit the needs of its unique population. 
Moreover, this budget repeals the Medicaid expansions in the 
President's health-care law, relieving state governments of its 
crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates.
    For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this 
budget also converts the current one-size-fits-all program into 
a flexible allotment tailored to meet each state's needs, 
indexed for the thrifty food plan and growth in the eligible 
population. Additionally, it builds on the reforms and lessons 
learned from the 1996 welfare-reform bill, which required 
rigorous work incentives and time limits on receipt.
    Additionally, in keeping with a recommendation from the 
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, this 
budget calls for federal employees--including Members of 
Congress and their staff--to make greater contributions toward 
their own retirement.
    During the Committee's consideration of the budget 
resolution, the majority and minority also worked together in a 
good-faith effort to incorporate an amendment offered by the 
minority. Although agreement on the language of the amendment 
could not be reached, the goals of the amendment offered were 
laudable and are shared by both Republicans and Democrats. It 
is the policy of this budget that the House of Representatives 
should support the goal of cutting poverty in half over the 
next ten years, and work to extend equality of opportunity to 
all Americans.
    As Congress works to protect low-income and middle-income 
Americans, this budget is premised on the belief that the 
prospect of upward mobility should be in reach of every 
American, and that priority must be given to maximizing the 
effectiveness of anti-poverty programs across federal, state, 
and local governments. Congress should work to remove the 
barriers and obstacles that prevent the most vulnerable 
Americans from taking advantage of economic and education 
opportunities, and moving up the ladder of opportunity to join 
the middle class and reach for the American Dream. By balancing 
the budget, implementing comprehensive tax reform, and 
reforming means-tested entitlement programs, this resolution is 
designed to accomplish exactly these goals. 



                             RECONCILIATION

                              ----------                              


    In 2012, the House passed a budget designed to provide a 
fast-track procedure to replace the arbitrary sequester cuts 
with sensible reforms of mandatory spending programs. 
Unfortunately, the President threatened to veto the resulting 
legislation, and the Senate did nothing while the sequester 
approached. In the final analysis, the President's opposition 
to sensible spending reforms and the Senate's failure to act 
resulted in the March 1, 2013 sequester of $85.3 billion.
How Reconciliation Works
    The 1974 Budget Act provides Congress with a special 
procedure to give expedited consideration to bills enacting the 
spending, revenue, and debt policies contained in the budget 
resolution. To trigger these expedited procedures, the House 
and Senate must reach agreement and include in the budget-
resolution conference report reconciliation instructions 
calling on specific committees to achieve specified amounts of 
savings in programs within their jurisdictions. The committees 
choose which programs to address and which policies to adopt in 
order to comply with the instructions.
Reconciliation in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution
    This budget gives reconciliation instructions to eight 
committees--Agriculture, Education and the Workforce, Energy 
and Commerce, Financial Services, Judiciary, Natural Resources, 
Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means--to produce 
legislation each reducing the deficit by at least $1 billion. 
These instructions represent a placeholder or starting point 
for negotiations with the Senate. As was demonstrated last 
year, without engagement from the Senate, the reconciliation 
process does not produce meaningful results. Absent a 
conference agreement, reconciliation's special procedures in 
the Senate cannot be implemented. While reconciliation provides 
an expedited process to implement the budget resolution's 
assumptions, it is not the only avenue. The budget proposes to 
implement all $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction through the 
regular legislative process if reconciliation is not ultimately 
used.

                      THE LONG-TERM BUDGET OUTLOOK

                              ----------                              


    The debt crisis ahead is the most urgent challenge we face 
today. But the deeper source of the crisis is the drift, under 
both parties, to expand the size of government. To avert the 
debt crisis, we need to stop this encroachment and to revive 
community in American civil society.
    This budget turns the tide. It makes $4.6 trillion in 
spending reductions over the next ten years. This budget 
reforms government spending programs responsibly. It protects 
key priorities while eliminating waste. And it avoids sudden 
cuts to current services, such as those the country would 
experience under a debt crisis.
    These reductions are hardly draconian. Under current law, 
the federal government will spend $46 trillion over the next 
ten years. Under this proposal, it will spend roughly $41 
trillion. And this budget does not make sudden cuts. Instead, 
it increases spending at a more manageable rate. For instance, 
on the current path, spending will rise by an annual average of 
5.0 percent. Under this budget, it will rise by only 3.4 
percent.
    Washington cannot keep spending money it does not have. So 
this budget achieves balance in 2023 by holding revenue and 
spending at 19.1 percent of GDP. A balanced budget is a common-
sense, responsible goal. It will boost Americans' confidence 
that their government is getting its fiscal house in order.
    At the same time it submitted its budget and economic 
outlook in February, CBO also issued an analysis that shows the 
macroeconomic impact of various fiscal scenarios. In this more 
recent analysis, CBO projects that a $4 trillion reduction in 
primary deficits would result in gross national product being 
1.7 percent higher in 2023 than it would be under current law.
    The positive economic feedback from a $4 trillion deficit-
reduction package would produce further dividends. In 2023 
alone, it would reduce spending by $26 billion, increase 
revenue by $55 billion, and reduce debt held by the public by 
$185 billion. The House Republican budget is projected to have 
a surplus of $7 billion in 2023 without incorporating CBO's 
economic feedback. When the economic feedback is incorporated, 
the House Republican budget would have a 2023 surplus of $89 
billion. Over the ten-year window, the positive economic 
feedback would bring spending down an additional $75 billion, 
increase revenue by $112 billion, and reduce deficits by a 
cumulative $186 billion.
    President Obama has yet to put forward a budget this year, 
despite his legal obligation to do so by the first Monday of 
February. Until he meets this statutory obligation, we are left 
with last year's budget proposal as the definitive statement of 
his vision for the nation's future. Unlike this budget, the 
President's budget never balanced--and it never paid off our 
debt. That budget included a stunning admission on the debt 
trajectory in the years ahead. The President's budget states 
that under his preferred policies, the federal government's 
``fiscal position gradually deteriorates,'' and his latest 
budget projects a debt spiraling out of control.
    The United States has dealt with financial problems in the 
past. After the Revolutionary War, our debt stood at the then-
staggering sum of $80 million--or 40 percent of our economy. 
The country suffered from rampant inflation and high interest 
rates. Political divisions ran deep. Yet, the country 
prevailed. Leaders from both sides--Alexander Hamilton of the 
Federalists and James Madison of the Democratic-Republicans--
put aside their differences to forge a solution. Both parties 
worked together to pay down the debt. And by the mid-1830s, the 
debt was virtually eliminated.
    More recently, in 1997, a Democratic president and a 
Republican Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, which 
inaugurated four years of balanced budgets. This budget follows 
that model. It incorporates ideas from both parties to address 
the most pressing issue of the day: our national debt. In so 
doing, it aims not to reject responsibility--but to solve the 
issue once and for all.
    The House Republican budget tackles the debt challenge, to 
help grow our economy today and to ensure the next generation 
inherits a stronger, more prosperous America. In contrast to 
the dangerous status quo, this budget lifts the crushing burden 
of debt.
    It does so by bringing down spending to 19.1 percent of 
GDP, equal to the levels of revenues. It provides that spending 
moving forward will not exceed this level, ensuring the budget 
remains balanced. To achieve this outcome, it puts in place 
fundamental reforms to protect and strengthen Medicare by 
gradually transitioning the program to a premium-support 
system. Along with Medicaid and other spending reforms, these 
changes are critical to putting the nation on sound financial 
footing going forward.

                     SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION

                              ----------                              


    The concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year 
establishes an overall budgetary framework which includes: 
aggregate levels of total new budget authority and outlays; 
total revenues and the amount by which revenues should be 
changed; the surplus or deficit; new budget authority and 
outlays for each major functional category; the debt held by 
the public; and the debt subject to the statutory limit.

SECTION 1. THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

    Subsection (a) establishes the budgetary levels for fiscal 
year 2014 and each of the nine years following that budget 
year, fiscal years 2015 through 2023. For a concurrent 
resolution on the budget, this is required by section 301(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    The term ``budget year'' means, with respect to a session 
of Congress, the fiscal year of the Government that starts on 
October 1 of the calendar year in which that session begins and 
is set out in section 250(c)(12) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The years following the 
budget year are termed ``outyears'' and are so defined in 
section 250(c)(13) of that Act.
    For the budget year, fiscal year 2014, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget reported by the Committee on the 
Budget establishes a ceiling on spending and a floor on 
revenue. Under the terms of section 301 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, this report sets an allocation of budget 
authority and outlays to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
House. That committee in turn suballocates that amount to its 
twelve subcommittees for spending on the various programs, 
projects and activities within the jurisdiction of the 
subcommittees.
    Allocations are also given to authorizing committees, those 
committees with spending authority, though in addition to the 
fiscal year 2014 allocation to the Appropriations Committee, 
these authorizing committees may not spend more than the 
allocation for the budget year or over the 10-year period 
provided for by the concurrent resolution on the budget.
    Subsection (b) sets out the table of contents of the 
resolution.

                Title I--Recommended Levels and Amounts

              SECTION 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

    As required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, this section establishes the recommended levels for 
revenue, the reduction in revenue provided for in the 
resolution, total new budget authority, total budget outlays, 
surpluses or deficits, debt held by the public, and the debt 
subject to the statutory limit. The recommended level of 
revenue operates as a floor against which all revenue bills are 
measured pursuant to section 311 of the Budget Act.
    Similarly, the recommended levels of new budget authority 
and budget outlays serve as a ceiling on the consideration of 
spending. The surplus or deficit levels reflect only on-budget 
outlays and revenue and do not reflect most outlays and 
receipts related to the Social Security program and United 
States Postal Service operations.
    The debt subject to statutory limit aggregates refers to 
the portion of gross Federal debt issued by the Treasury to the 
public or another government fund or account, whereas the debt 
held by the public is the amount of debt issued and held by 
entities or individuals other than the U.S. Government.

                SECTION 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES

    Also required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, section 102 establishes the budgetary levels for 
each major functional category for fiscal year 2014, the budget 
year, and for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
    These major functional categories are as follows:
          050 National Defense
          150 International Affairs
          250 General Science, Space, and Technology
          270 Energy
          300 Natural Resources and Environment
          350 Agriculture
          370 Commerce and Housing Credit
          400 Transportation
          450 Community and Regional Development
          500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
        Services
          550 Health
          570 Medicare
          600 Income Security
          650 Social Security
          700 Veterans Benefits and Services
          750 Administration of Justice
          800 General Government
          900 Net Interest
          920 Allowances
          930 Government-wide Savings
          950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
          970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
        Terrorism

                        Title II--Reconciliation

      SECTION 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    As permitted by section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, this concurrent resolution on the budget includes 
reconciliation instructions to specified committees of the 
House. These instructions require those committees to submit 
legislative text to amend laws in their jurisdictions to 
achieve an amount of deficit reduction. The various committee 
recommendations are submitted to the Committee on the Budget, 
which then binds them together and votes whether to report the 
resulting bill to the House. The Committee on the Budget may 
only report the legislation submitted to it. The Committee may 
not make any substantive changes.
    Section 201(a) directs eight authorizing committees to 
transmit changes in programs within their jurisdiction to the 
Committee on the Budget that achieve a specified amount of 
deficit reduction over a ten-year period.
    Section 201(b) instructs the committees to submit 
legislative language to the Committee on the Budget. These 
committees are as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Natural Resources, 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the 
Committee on Ways and Means. (See reconciliation instructions 
for each committee in Table xx.)
    The reconciliation instructions in this concurrent 
resolution instruct each committee to reduce the deficit by a 
specified amount. Deficits are calculated by the net effect of 
changes in outlays and revenue a measure may make.
    Though the committees receiving instructions determine the 
policy and program changes, outlay savings must be in the 
direct spending category. For instance, a reduction in an 
authorization level for spending subject to annual 
appropriations is categorized as authorizing future 
discretionary spending and would not be estimated as producing 
direct spending savings as the reconciliation process requires.
    In addition, clause 7 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives prohibits the consideration of a concurrent 
resolution on the budget that includes instructions for a 
reconciliation bill that has the net effect of increasing 
outlays.
    Similarly, the committee receiving an instruction under 
this section determines the policy as to how revenue changes 
are made. A submission to the Committee on the Budget may 
increase or decrease revenue, depending on the instruction.
    The committees determine the changes in law necessary to 
achieve the specified amount of deficit reduction for the 
period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  Title III--Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040, and 2050

                    SECTION 301. LONG-TERM BUDGETING

    This section sets out recommended budgetary levels for 
certain budget aggregates for each of fiscal years 2030, 2040, 
and 2050 as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the 
United States as follows:
Federal Revenues
          Fiscal Year 2030: 19.1 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 19.1 percent
          Fiscal Year 2050: 19.1 percent
Budget Outlays
          Fiscal Year 2030: 19.1 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 19.1 percent
          Fiscal Year 2050: 19.1 percent
Deficits
          Fiscal Year 2030: 0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2050: 0 percent

                        Title IV--Reserve Funds

 SECTION 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to 
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary 
enforcement levels for a measure that fully repeals the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the 
health care-related provisions of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152). Those measures 
are the health care bills enacted into law in 2010. These 
adjustments would not be available for measures that only 
offered a partial repeal, such as a repeal of certain sections 
of these laws. The reserve fund is intended to apply to the 
health care provisions and would not apply to the repeal of the 
education-related provisions of the reconciliation act referred 
to above.
    A measure repealing the health care laws must solely 
achieve that purpose and may not include language which is 
extraneous to that purpose, whether such language has a 
budgetary effect or not. In addition, the repeal must be 
permanent and may not include a sunset date.
    Multiple measures may take advantage of the reserve fund, 
as long as each meets the parameters outlined, until such 
repeal is enacted.
    An amendment (or a motion to recommit), if it qualifies 
under the terms of this reserve fund, may be offered to an 
unrelated measure, but should such a measure as amended be 
returned to the House as a conference report or an amendment 
between the Houses, no adjustments would be made if that 
measure contained text unrelated to the purpose of this reserve 
fund which is to repeal the laws referred to above.
    A measure receiving an adjustment under the terms of this 
reserve fund may be open for amendment, subject to the special 
rule providing for its consideration, but the amendment, if it 
does not meet the terms outlined in this section, must be 
compliant with the Budget Act and the Rules of the House 
without regard to the adjustments made to the underlying 
measure.

 SECTION 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REFORM OF THE 2010 
                            HEALTH CARE LAWS

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to 
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary 
enforcement levels for a measure that reforms or replaces the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) 
or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 
(Public Law 111-152), as long as the measure is deficit-neutral 
for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023. Those public 
laws are the health care bills enacted in 2010.
    For purposes of this section, if a bill, joint resolution, 
amendment or conference report fulfills the purpose of 
reforming or replacing these health care laws and is deficit 
neutral in the applicable period, then legislative text not 
related to these purposes may be included as long as the entire 
measure meets these two requirements.

   SECTION 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE MEDICARE 
                PROVISIONS OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to 
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary 
enforcement levels for a measure that repeals the Medicare 
spending cuts in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Public Law 111-148) or the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), as long as the 
measure is deficit-neutral for the period of fiscal years 2014 
through 2023.
    A measure that repeals only part of these Medicare spending 
reductions is also eligible for these adjustments. A series of 
bills, joint resolutions, amendments or conference reports may 
receive adjustments under this section, only limited by the 
cumulative amount of the Medicare spending reductions included 
in the public laws referenced, as estimated by the Chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget.
    Once the limit is reached through enacted measures, no more 
adjustments may be made under this reserve fund. The amount 
necessary to repeal the Medicare spending cuts is a cap on the 
adjustments that may be made under this section, but as 
measures are considered in the House that meet these terms, the 
amount is not reduced until such measure fulfilling this 
purpose is enacted.

 SECTION 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH 
                      RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and to adjust other budgetary 
enforcement levels in this resolution for a measure amending or 
superseding the system for updating payments under section 1848 
of the Social Security Act, as long as the measure does not 
increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 2014 through 
2023.

  SECTION 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE TAX CODE

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to the Committee on Ways and Means and to adjust other 
budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution for bills, 
joint resolutions, amendments or conference reports reforming 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as long as such a measure 
does not increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 
2014 through 2023.
    Since 1997, the Rules of the House of Representatives (now 
Rule XIII, clause 3(h)(2)), have required the publication of a 
macroeconomic impact analysis from the Joint Committee on 
Taxation (JCT) of legislation amending the tax code. This 
section is designed to facilitate comprehensive, fundamental 
tax reform that significantly broadens the tax base and lowers 
tax rates (see the Revenue chapter of this report for 
additional details). Reform of this sort could have significant 
economic effects. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
will consider the JCT macroeconomic impact analysis in 
determining if the conditions in this section have been met.

     SECTION 406. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE AGREEMENTS

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to the Committee on Ways and Means and to adjust other 
budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution for legislation 
that implements a trade agreement, as long as such a measure 
does not increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 
2014 through 2023.

     SECTION 407. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to the Committee on Ways and Means for legislation that causes 
a decrease in revenue. The Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this 
concurrent resolution if the measure does not increase the 
deficit in the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023. This 
allows the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill that 
reduces revenue below the level provided for in the concurrent 
resolution on the budget but only if it decreases outlays by an 
equal or greater amount in the applicable period.

   SECTION 408. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND 
                                SCHOOLS

    This concurrent resolution provides for a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund to accommodate the extension of the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public 
Law 106-393) in order to provide the federal government, local 
counties, and industry the time necessary to enact, implement, 
and begin performing sustained yield harvests of federal timber 
lands on which local counties are financially dependent. The 
plan assumed by this reserve fund is based on the best 
available science, provides for active forest management to 
improve the health of the resource, creates strong local 
family-wage job markets, and provides rural counties with 
fiscal independence from federal payments owed to them because 
of a lack of timber harvests on federal lands.

 SECTION 409. IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEFICIT AND LONG-TERM DEBT REDUCTION 
                               AGREEMENT

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other 
appropriate levels in this resolution to accommodate the 
enactment of a deficit and long-term debt reduction agreement 
if it includes permanent spending reductions and reforms to 
direct spending programs.
    Under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), at least $1.2 
trillion in deficit reduction was to be accomplished in the 
period of fiscal years 2013 through 2021 by legislation 
recommended by a specially created Joint Select Committee on 
Deficit Reduction. When that committee was unable to meet that 
budget goal, an automatic enforcement procedure ensured that 
this deficit reduction was achieved but did so in a way that 
focused disproportionately on the 36 percent of the budget that 
is approved annually through the appropriations process.
    Under the fiscal year 2013 sequester, for example, 
discretionary spending bore fully 80 percent of the spending 
cuts and in fiscal year 2014 discretionary spending is 
estimated to absorb 84 percent of the automatic enforcement 
burden. Given the projected 78 percent growth of mandatory 
spending programs by 2023, the BCA's focus on discretionary 
spending is misplaced and inadequate to addressing the deficit 
and debt problems facing the nation. It is contemplated that an 
agreement achieving significant deficit reduction and long-term 
debt reduction will reallocate the burden of the BCA automatic 
enforcement procedures more equitably.

                 Title V--Estimates of Direct Spending

                      SECTION 501. DIRECT SPENDING

    Subsection (a) notes the average and estimated average rate 
of growth in means-tested direct spending for the 10-year 
periods before and after fiscal year 2014 respectively. It also 
proposes reforms to the means-tested category of direct 
spending.
    Subsection (b) notes the average and estimated average rate 
of growth in nonmeans-tested direct spending for the 10-year 
periods before and after fiscal year 2014 respectively. It also 
proposes reforms to the nonmeans-tested category of direct 
spending.
    This section is required under the Separate Orders of H. 
Res. 5 (113th Congress) which implements the Rules of the House 
of Representatives and is a requirement for the consideration 
of a concurrent resolution on the budget for the 113th 
Congress. See section designated ``Direct Spending Trends and 
Reforms'' within this report for more information on Section 
501.

                      Title VI--Budget Enforcement

           SECTION 601. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) prohibits any general or continuing 
appropriation providing for advance appropriations that do not 
fall into certain specified exceptions.
    Subsection (c) provides the list of excepted programs that 
may receive advance appropriations. Those accounts are referred 
to in this report in the section designated as ``Accounts 
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' within this report.
    Subsection (d) specifically sets a limit on the amount of 
total allowable advance appropriations for fiscal year 2015. It 
allows advance appropriations of up to $55.483 billion for 
fiscal year 2015 for Veterans Medical Services, Veterans 
Medical Support and Compliance, and Veterans Medical Facilities 
accounts of the Veterans Health Administration. Under the terms 
of Section 603 of the concurrent resolution, this level of 
spending may be revised upon the review of the budget submitted 
by the President required under 31 U.S.C. 1105(a).
    It also allows up to $28.852 billion for the programs 
referred to in subsection (c).
    Subsection (e) defines advance appropriation as any new 
discretionary budget authority provided in a bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report making general or 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015.

                 SECTION 602. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

    This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to adjust levels and allocations in this budget 
resolution upon enactment of legislation changing concepts or 
definitions.

  SECTION 603. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS AND APPROPRIATE 
                            BUDGETARY LEVELS

    Subsection (a) sets out a procedure to facilitate the 
consideration of legislation subjecting direct spending to 
annual appropriations. Under current law, there are impediments 
to reclassifying direct spending as discretionary spending 
since once the direct spending is eliminated, effectively the 
purpose is eliminated as well.
    Under current practice, if the intent is to preserve the 
purpose, but authorize the program and subject it to annual 
appropriations, the Committee on Appropriations would have to 
find additional resources within its section 302(a) allocation, 
as required to be set in the report on the budget resolution by 
section 301(e)(2)(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    Under the terms of this subsection, should an authorizing 
committee want to retain the purpose of a direct spending 
program, but determines it should be subject to annual 
appropriations, it can, at the time it eliminates the direct 
spending, authorize appropriations for the program. If that 
elimination of the direct spending and authorization of 
appropriations is enacted, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget may increase the 302(a) allocation of budgetary 
resources to the Committee on Appropriations by an amount up to 
the authorized level of appropriations for the same purpose in 
fiscal year 2014.
    This rule holds the Committee on Appropriations harmless if 
it appropriates money under the terms of that authorization 
because the allocation under section 302(a) set in this report 
is adjusted.
    Subsection (b)(1) sets out findings related to the 
statutory requirement that the President submit an annual 
budget by the first Monday in February of each year.
    Subsection (b)(2) provides authority to the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget to adjust the allocations, aggregates, 
and other appropriate budgetary levels as necessary once the 
President's budget request has been submitted to Congress as is 
required under section 1105(a) of Title 31 of the United States 
Code.
    The limitation on advance appropriations for veterans 
medical care in section 601(d)(1) of this concurrent resolution 
is based on information provided in the President's budget 
submitted in February 2012 and is for the fiscal year that 
begins in October of 2014. The Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget is authorized by this section to update this limit on 
advance appropriations.
    The level of funding for Overseas Contingency Operations/
Global War on Terrorism is an estimate based on indications by 
the President pursuant to that purpose. This section authorizes 
the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust the 
relevant aggregates, allocations, and budgetary levels in this 
resolution to ensure that commitment is fulfilled.
    The levels included in this concurrent resolution on the 
budget reflect the total level of discretionary budget 
authority, prior to any authorized adjustments, provided for in 
the spending limits in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted under 
section 251A of that Act). The discretionary spending limits 
for fiscal year 2014 will be set in the fiscal year 2014 
Sequester Preview Report, which was supposed to have been 
submitted together with the President's budget on February 4, 
2013.
    In the absence of this preview report for the fiscal year 
2014 discretionary spending category limits, this resolution 
uses estimates provided by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office.
    This section authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget to adjust the allocation to the Appropriations 
Committee provided to it under section 302(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act to reflect the preview report that 
will be included in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget 
submission.
    Subsection (b)(3) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget to adjust levels and allocations in this 
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect technical and 
economic assumptions in the most recent baseline published by 
the Congressional Budget Office.
    Subsection (c) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget to determine the levels and adjustments provided for 
in this concurrent resolution on the budget.

             SECTION 604. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING

    Subsection (a) establishes a point of order against the 
consideration of measures increasing direct spending by $5 
billion or more for any 10-year period within 40 years starting 
in fiscal year 2024.
    Subsection (b) explains that there are four consecutive 
ten-year periods as referred to in subsection (a) that would be 
as follows:
    Fiscal years 2024 through 2033;
    Fiscal years 2034 through 2043;
    Fiscal years 2044 through 2053;
    Fiscal years 2054 through 2063.

        SECTION 605. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS

    Subsection (a) provides that the administrative expenses of 
the Social Security Administration and the United States Postal 
Service are reflected in the allocation to the Committee on 
Appropriations. This language is necessary to ensure that the 
Committee on Appropriations retains control of administrative 
expenses through the annual appropriations process.
    Subsection (b) provides for a special rule stating the 
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations of the House is 
enforced under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 using 
estimates of the budgetary effects of a measure and includes 
any off-budget discretionary amounts.
    Subsection (c) allows the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to adjust the spending or revenue levels of this 
concurrent resolution for legislation, if reported by the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to reform the 
Federal retirement system. The Chairman is permitted to make 
adjustments only if a measure would not cause an increase in 
the deficit in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal years 2014 through 
2023.

   SECTION 606. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                               AGGREGATES

    Subsection (a) details the allocation and aggregate 
adjustment procedures required to accommodate legislation 
provided for in this resolution. It provides that the 
adjustments apply while the legislation is under consideration 
and take effect upon enactment of the legislation. In addition, 
this subsection requires the adjustments to be printed in the 
Congressional Record.
    Subsection (b) requires, for purposes of enforcement of the 
concurrent resolution, aggregate and allocation levels 
resulting from adjustments made pursuant to the terms of this 
resolution have the same effect as if adopted in the originally 
adopted aggregates and allocations.
    Subsection (c) provides an exemption for legislation for 
which the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget has made 
adjustments in the allocations, aggregates, and other 
appropriate budgetary levels of the resolution and that 
complies with this Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. By such 
an exemption, such legislation is subject to neither the Cut-
As-You-Go point of order (clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives) nor section 604 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget (the long-term spending point of 
order).
    In addition, this subsection (c)(2) provides that section 
314(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 does not apply 
to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report 
that provides new budget authority for a fiscal year that does 
not cause the allocation of new budget authority made pursuant 
to section 302(a) of that Act for that fiscal year to be 
exceeded or the sum of the limits on the security and non-
security category in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act as reduced pursuant to section 251A of that Act.
    Section 314(f) prohibits the consideration of measures that 
would cause either of the two statutory spending category 
limits, security or nonsecurity, to be breached for a fiscal 
year. The 302(a) allocation for the House Appropriations 
Committee, provided by the concurrent resolution under the 
requirements of the Budget Act, is the sum of these two 
categories. Though the section refers to the sum of the 
categories, the effect of paragraph (2) of subsection (c), the 
operative component is the test as to whether the 
Appropriations Committee is within its 302(a) allocation--if 
so, the 314(f) point of order will not apply even if one of the 
category limits, either security or nonsecurity, is exceeded by 
that measure.

           SECTION 607. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) provides specific authority for the Chairman 
or Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget to request a 
supplemental estimate for any program affecting or establishing 
Federal loans or loan guarantees. Under current law, such a 
measure would be scored on a ``net present value'' basis under 
the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act found in Title V of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The supplemental estimate 
would be scored using a ``fair value'' basis that generally 
incorporates a more realistic market risk factor.
    Subsection (c) requires that, whenever the Congressional 
Budget Office prepares an estimate of the cost of legislation 
with a cost related to a housing or residential mortgage 
program under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the 
Director must also provide an estimate of the ``fair value'' of 
the assets and liabilities affected.
    Subsection (d) allows the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to use the supplemental estimates to determine 
compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and other 
budgetary enforcement controls.

  SECTION 608. TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY TO THE 
          HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS

    This section provides that for purposes of budget 
enforcement, transfers of funds from the general fund of the 
Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund are to be counted as new 
budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the 
transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs.

 SECTION 609. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
                        GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

    Subsection (a) provides for a separate section 302(a) 
allocation under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and is 
set out in this report in allocation tables, to the Committee 
on Appropriations for overseas contingency operations and the 
global war on terrorism (OCO/GWOT). For purposes of enforcing 
the point of order set out in section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal year'' and 
the ``total of fiscal years'' refer to fiscal year 2014 only. 
This separate allocation is the exclusive allocation for OCO/
GWOT under section 302(a).
    It states that any provision designated as such under 
section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985 which raises the statutory spending 
limits by the amount designated will be counted toward the 
separate OCO/GWOT allocation and not to the general section 
302(a) allocation.
    Subsection (b) provides that the procedure of adjusting the 
general 302(a) allocation under section 314 of the Budget Act 
for this purpose does not apply, as it is unnecessary with the 
special allocation.

               SECTION 610. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS

    This section provides for the general application of the 
text of this concurrent resolution on the budget.

                      Title VII--Policy Statements

   SECTION 701. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on promoting economic 
growth and job creation assumed by this concurrent resolution 
on the budget.

              SECTION 702. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on tax reform assumed by 
this concurrent resolution on the budget.

               SECTION 703. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is to protect those in or near 
retirement from any disruptions to their Medicare benefits and 
offer future beneficiaries the same health care options 
available to Members of Congress.
    Subsection (c) sets out the assumptions of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the parameters of future Medicare 
reforms.

            SECTION 704. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on Social Security assumed 
by this concurrent resolution on the budget.

    SECTION 705. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on higher education 
affordability assumed by this concurrent resolution on the 
budget.

    SECTION 706. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                  CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) directs congressional committees through 
their oversight activities to identify and achieve savings 
through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated balances 
that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the Federal 
Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under 
programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national 
security, and Treasury authority to finance the national debt.
    Subsection (c) provides that Congress, with the assistance 
of the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors 
General, and other appropriate agencies should make it a high 
priority to review unobligated balances and identify savings 
for deficit reduction.
    While there is year-to-year variability, unobligated 
balances have generally been trending upwards over the past ten 
years, from $253 billion at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $725 
billion at the end of fiscal year 2011. According to the Office 
of Management and Budget, federal agencies will have an 
estimated $698 billion in unobligated balances at the close of 
fiscal year 2014, though agencies tend to overestimate their 
rate of obligations. Legislation introduced by Dr. Tom Price of 
Georgia (H.R.828) would rescind $45 billion in unobligated 
discretionary funds within 60 days of enactment. CBO has 
informally estimated that such a measure could reduce spending 
by approximately $22 billion.
    The large sums of unobligated balances indicate that there 
are major opportunities for savings to reduce the deficit. 
Additional investigation is necessary to determine what portion 
of these anticipated unobligated balances can be cancelled or 
rescinded for deficit reduction without abrogating the Federal 
Government's contractual obligations or reducing or disrupting 
federal commitments under high priority programs and Treasury's 
authority to finance the national debt.
    A reasonable goal would be to reduce unobligated balances 
by 10 percent, excluding Departments of Defense, Treasury, 
Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration, to 
achieve savings for deficit reduction.

 SECTION 707. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER 
                                DOLLARS

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is to identify any savings that can be 
achieved through greater productivity and efficiency gains in 
the operation and maintenance of House services and resources.

    SECTION 708. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
             REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that each Congressional Committee 
shall as part of its annual Views and Estimates letter to the 
Committee on the Budget submit recommendations for reductions 
in spending that result from that committee's oversight 
activities.

         SECTION 709. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING

    This section states that the committees of jurisdiction 
should review all unauthorized programs funded through annual 
appropriations to determine if the programs are operating 
efficiently and effectively and reauthorize only those programs 
that in the committees' judgment should continue to receive 
funding.

               Title VIII--Sense of the House Provisions

  SECTION 801. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT 
                              ENFORCEMENT

    This section expresses the sense of the House that 
additional legislative action is needed 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.
    It also expresses the sense that when 100 percent of child 
support payments are passed to the child, rather than spent on 
administrative expenses, program integrity is improved and 
child support participation increases.
                    THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

                              ----------                              


    The spending and revenue levels established in the budget 
resolution are executed through two parallel, but separate, 
mechanisms: allocations to the appropriations and authorizing 
committees; and, when necessary, reconciliation directives to 
the authorizing committees.
    As required under section 302(a) of the Congressional 
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the discretionary 
spending levels established in the budget resolution are 
allocated to the Appropriations Committee and the direct 
spending levels are allocated to each of the authorizing 
committees with direct spending authority of each House of 
Congress.
    These allocations appear in the report accompanying the 
budget resolution, and they are enforced through points of 
order (see the section of this report titled: ``Enforcing the 
Budget Resolution ''). Amounts provided under `current law' 
encompass programs that affect direct spending--entitlements 
and other programs that have spending authority or offsetting 
receipts. Amounts subject to discretionary action refer to 
programs that require subsequent legislation to provide the 
necessary spending authority. Amounts provided under 
`reauthorizations' reflect amounts assumed to be provided in 
subsequent legislation reauthorizing expiring direct spending 
programs.
    Allocations of budget authority and outlays are provided 
for the budget year (fiscal year 2014), and the 10-year period 
(fiscal years 2014 through 2023). Section 302 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as 
modified by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) requires that 
allocations of budget authority be provided in the report 
accompanying the budget resolution for the 1st fiscal year and 
at least the 4 ensuing fiscal years (except for the Committee 
on Appropriations, which receives an allocation only for the 
budget year).

                      COMMITTEES OF AUTHORIZATION

    The report (or the joint statement of managers in the 
instance of a conference report) accompanying the concurrent 
resolution on the budget allocates to the authorizing 
committees a sum of new budget authority along with the 
attendant outlays required to fund the direct spending within 
their jurisdiction. The committees may be allocated additional 
budget authority should increases in spending be required in 
their jurisdiction. This occurs when the budget resolution 
assumes a new or expanded direct spending program. Such 
spending authority must be provided through subsequent 
legislation and is not controlled through the annual 
appropriations process.
302(a) Allocations
    Because the spending authority for authorizing committees 
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations are established for 
the budget year commencing on October 1, and a 10-year total 
for fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
    Unlike the Committee on Appropriations, each authorizing 
committee is provided a single allocation of new budget 
authority (divided between current law and expected policy 
action) not provided through annual appropriations. These 
committees are not required to file 302(b) allocations. Bills 
first effective in fiscal year 2014 are measured against the 
level for that year included in the fiscal year 2014 budget 
resolution and also the 10-year period of fiscal year 2014 
through 2022.

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

    The report accompanying the concurrent resolution on the 
budget allocates to the Committee on Appropriations a lump sum 
of discretionary budget authority assumed in the resolution and 
corresponding outlays for a single fiscal year.
302(a) Allocations
    Because the spending authority for authorizing committees 
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations in the budget 
resolution are for the budget year, which is the fiscal year 
2014 that commences on October 1, 2012, and a 10-year total for 
fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
302(b) Allocations
    Once a 302(a) allocation is provided to it by the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for a budget year, the 
Appropriations Committee is required to divide the allocation 
among its subcommittees. Though the number of subcommittees has 
varied over time, for budget year 2014, there are twelve. The 
amount each subcommittee receives constitutes its suballocation 
pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
    Each appropriation bill reported by a subcommittee 
providing budget authority for programs within its jurisdiction 
for the budget year must not breach this 302(b) suballocation. 
The sum of the suballocations must equal the 302(a) allocation 
provided, though an additional 302(b) suballocation may be made 
and assigned to the full Appropriations Committee. This 
additional suballocation must be an amount in the form of a 
positive whole number.
    Under section 302(c) of the Budget Act, Appropriations Acts 
may not be considered on the floor of the House before these 
302(b) suballocations are made.
    The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines a `budget 
year' as the fiscal year starting in the calendar year in which 
a session of Congress first meets. Since the second session of 
the 112th Congress first met on January 5, 2012 (pursuant to 
Public Law 111-289), for the purposes of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget, the budget year is fiscal year 2014.
    In general, bills, conference reports, joint resolutions, 
concurrent resolutions, cease to exist at the end of each 
Congress (in the House of Representatives). When a new Congress 
meets, though, the House extends rules from the previous 
Congress through a simple House Resolution. In this way, the 
Budget Resolution is extended into the new Congress. The budget 
year, thus, may change, but for purposes of enforcement, the 
first fiscal year for the budget resolution remains the same.

    TABLE 11.--ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
                             APPROPRIATIONS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Discretionary Action:
    BA.....................................................      966,375
    OT.....................................................    1,114,260
Global War on Terrorism:
    BA.....................................................       93,000
    OT.....................................................       46,621
Current Law Mandatory:
    BA.....................................................      761,123
    OT.....................................................      750,691
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             TABLE 12.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE
               [On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2014          2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          92,937         902,350
        OT..............................          89,974         897,262
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................          -2,631        -209,044
        OT..............................          -2,501        -208,556
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................          90,306         693,306
            OT..........................          87,473         688,706
                                         ===============================
Armed Services:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         150,925       1,776,043
        OT..............................         150,804       1,779,929
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................         150,925       1,776,043
            OT..........................         150,804       1,779,929
                                         ===============================
Financial Services:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          21,032         134,620
        OT..............................           9,959         -43,252
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -21,712        -217,458
        OT..............................          -7,430        -198,921
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................            -680         -82,838
            OT..........................           2,529        -242,173
                                         ===============================
Education & Workforce:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         -25,592           3,426
        OT..............................         -21,750             776
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -22,996      -1,604,166
        OT..............................         -20,659      -1,596,356
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................         -48,588      -1,600,740
            OT..........................         -42,409      -1,595,580
                                         ===============================
Energy & Commerce:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         357,804       5,084,049
        OT..............................         354,134       5,078,840
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -11,465         -94,439
        OT..............................         -10,428         -94,325
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................         346,339       4,989,610
            OT..........................         343,706       4,984,515
                                         ===============================
Foreign Affairs:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          29,154         241,749
        OT..............................          26,121         235,371
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................          29,154         241,749
            OT..........................          26,121         235,371
                                         ===============================
Oversight & Government Reform:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         102,084       1,197,708
        OT..............................          98,451       1,162,761
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -11,758        -165,996
        OT..............................         -11,758        -165,996
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................          90,326       1,031,712
            OT..........................          86,693         996,765
                                         ===============================
Homeland Security:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................           1,916          22,255
        OT..............................           1,904          22,183
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................            -305         -12,575
        OT..............................            -305         -12,575
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           1,611           9,680
            OT..........................           1,599           9,608
                                         ===============================
------------------------------------------------------------------------


        TABLE 12.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE--Continued
               [On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2014          2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Administration:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................              39             370
        OT..............................               5             205
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................             -34            -295
        OT..............................               0            -130
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................               5              75
            OT..........................               5              75
                                         ===============================
Natural Resources:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................           6,328          62,205
        OT..............................           7,149          65,337
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................            -900         -17,995
        OT..............................            -632         -17,225
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           5,428          44,210
            OT..........................           6,517          48,112
                                         ===============================
Judiciary:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          19,850         102,560
        OT..............................           9,415         102,921
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -11,506         -47,461
        OT..............................            -637         -45,809
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           8,344          55,099
            OT..........................           8,778          57,112
                                         ===============================
Transportation & Infrastructure:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          71,902         728,450
        OT..............................          16,959         193,263
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................             -78        -116,444
        OT..............................             -47            -951
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................          71,824         612,006
            OT..........................          16,912         192,312
                                         ===============================
Science, Space & Technology:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................             101           1,010
        OT..............................             106           1,015
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................             101           1,010
            OT..........................             106           1,015
                                         ===============================
------------------------------------------------------------------------


        TABLE 12.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE--Continued
               [On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2014          2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................               0               0
            OT..........................               0               0
                                         ===============================
Veterans Affairs:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................           2,951          93,459
        OT..............................           3,078          95,096
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           2,951          93,459
            OT..........................           3,078          95,096
                                         ===============================
Ways & Means:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         973,502      14,639,393
        OT..............................         972,842      14,632,462
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -22,567      -1,298,202
        OT..............................         -21,667      -1,291,946
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................         950,935      13,341,191
            OT..........................         951,175      13,340,516
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   STATUTORY CONTROLS OVER THE BUDGET

                              ----------                              


    Since 1985, a series of statutory budget controls has been 
superimposed on the congressional budget process through the 
enactment of, and subsequent amendments to, the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA). This Act 
has been added and changed a succession of times and generally 
serves as the vehicle for statutory controls over the budget, 
but not exclusively so.

       BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985

    The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
1985 (BBEDCA) initially was intended to reduce deficits by 
establishing annual maximum deficit limits. These limits were 
enforced through ``sequestration'' which involved automatic 
across-the-board spending reductions required to be ordered by 
the President if the deficit targets were missed. The orders 
under the terms of BBDECA occur within 15 days after the end of 
a session of Congress. Sequestration remains an enforcement 
procedure for statutory budget controls through at least fiscal 
year 2001.

                     BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990

    The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA) significantly 
revised BBEDCA (the BEA is included as Title XIII of Public Law 
101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990). It 
replaced the maximum spending limits originally in BBEDCA with 
annual limits on discretionary spending and controls over 
increases in direct spending or decreases in revenues, termed 
``pay-as-you go (PAYGO).''
    OBRA 1990, as amended, established separate limits on 
appropriations for defense, international affairs, and domestic 
discretionary appropriations through fiscal year 1993, and a 
single limit on all appropriations for fiscal years 1994 and 
1995.
    Under PAYGO, if the cumulative effect of legislation 
enacted through the end of a session of Congress increased the 
deficit, the amount of that deficit increase for a fiscal year 
following that session would cause a sequestration of spending 
by that amount.

               OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993) 
extended a single discretionary limit through fiscal year 1998. 
Any breach of the cap would cause a sequestration (again an 
across-the-board cut in all nonexempt discretionary programs 
under the cap). These spending limits were held harmless for 
changes in inflation, emergencies, estimating differences, and 
changes in concepts and definitions. OBRA 1993 also extended 
the pay-as-you-go enforcement procedures for legislation 
enacted through fiscal year 1998.

                      BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

    The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 1997) again revised 
the level of discretionary spending limits and extended them 
through fiscal year 2002. As amended by the OBRA 1993, these 
controls would have expired at the end of fiscal year 1998. BBA 
1997 modified the discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 
1998 and extended through fiscal year 2002. Similarly, the 
PAYGO requirements were extended through fiscal year 2002. BBA 
1997 also made many technical changes in both the congressional 
budget process and the sequestration procedures that enforce 
the discretionary spending limits and PAYGO requirements.
    The BBA established separate limits on defense and non-
defense discretionary spending for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. 
These limits were combined into a single limit on discretionary 
spending in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Separate 
discretionary spending limits were intended to prevent Congress 
and the President from using savings in one category to offset 
an increase in another.
    BBA 1997 repealed automatic adjustments in the caps for 
changes in inflation and estimating differences between OMB and 
CBO on budget outlays. It retained adjustments for emergencies, 
estimating differences in outlays, continuing disability 
reviews and added adjustments for the International Monetary 
Fund, international arrearages, and an Earned Income Tax Credit 
compliance initiative.
    These adjustments are made in the President's final 
sequestration report issued fifteen days after the end of a 
session of Congress.

                  STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010

    No further significant congressional action was taken on 
re-establishing statutory controls on spending and revenue 
until 2010, when on February 10 of that year, the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 was signed as part of Public Law 111-
139, which raised the statutory limit on the public debt.
    It was similar to the expired pay-as-you-go law, and 
included references to certain sections of the BBEDCA, but it 
did not bring that law back into force. It did amend sections 
of that Act such as the sequestrable base. It did not establish 
new discretionary spending limits for any period of time.

                       BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

    Enacted on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(BCA) authorized an increase in the public debt limit. Added to 
this increase were statutory controls on spending, primarily in 
the form of making BBEDCA permanent in its entirety and re-
establishing the discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 
2012 through 2021 in section 251(c) of that Act. These 
discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 
were divided into security and non-security categories. The 
remaining years were set as a single discretionary general 
category.
    These initial spending limits were replaced and their 
definitions changed though, since the BCA also included 
additional procedures that had the effect of altering the caps 
as set out in section 251(c) of BBEDCA, in particular by 
extending the security/non-security categories through the end 
of the period.
    The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 
discretionary spending caps of the BCA would reduce the 
deficit, including savings from debt service, by $917 billion 
over the 10 fiscal years covering 2012 through 2021.
    The BCA also established a Joint Select Committee on 
Deficit Reduction that was tasked with reporting a bill to 
reduce the federal deficit by an additional $1.5 trillion over 
a 10-year period ending in fiscal year 2021. Legislation from 
the Joint Committee would have been considered under procedures 
limiting amendment and debate. Under the terms of the BCA, if 
legislation from the Joint Committee reducing the deficit by at 
least $1.2 trillion were not enacted, then a procedure would be 
set in motion to reduce spending by adjusting the discretionary 
caps downward and calculating an amount of reductions in direct 
spending necessary to achieve the $1.2 trillion (or a portion 
thereof were legislation from the Joint Committee achieving 
some deficit reduction was enacted).
    The Joint Committee was unable to report any proposal 
reducing the deficit by any amount and no legislation to that 
purpose was enacted by the required January 15, 2012 deadline. 
On this date, not only did the Joint Committee cease to exist, 
the automatic spending reduction process was triggered.
    The process that began on January 15, 2012 had the 
following ramifications: The statutory discretionary caps were 
replaced by new caps with new definitions of security and 
nonsecurity--now effectively defense and nondefense, though the 
previous terms are still used. These categories have replaced 
the discretionary general category through 2021.
    The process has two components: sequestration and 
discretionary spending limits reduction. In order to achieve 
the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, spending reductions 
will occur absent a change in law. OMB is charged with 
calculating the amount in spending reduction required to 
achieve the specified deficit reduction.
    Since the Joint Committee didn't achieve any deficit 
reduction, the calculation begins with a spending reduction of 
the full $1.2 trillion from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal 
year 2021. According to the BCA formula, that number is reduced 
by 18 percent to account for the reduced cost of debt service 
attributable to the lower level of spending. The remaining 
amount is divided by nine to account for each of fiscal years 
2013 through 2021. This amount is then divided by two so that 
it is evenly distributed between reductions in defense and 
nondefense accounts.
    The spending reductions are further divided between direct 
spending and discretionary spending within the defense and 
nondefense accounts.
    The implementation of the spending reductions is distinct 
from the calculation of the amounts. Once the amount is 
calculated, the BCA requires reductions through sequestration 
and reductions to the revised discretionary spending limits.
    The sequestration order affects both discretionary and 
mandatory spending for fiscal year 2013. This means that 
discretionary amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2013 are to 
be sequestered by the calculated amount no matter how much is 
appropriated--it is not sequestered as a function of the 
discretionary spending limit for that fiscal year. In addition, 
for all fiscal years 2013 through 2021, a direct spending 
sequester of nonexempt accounts is ordered.
    This is distinct from the spending reductions for the 
discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2014 through 
fiscal year 2021--these reductions occur through revising the 
spending limits downward for each of those fiscal years.

                  AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 2012

    As part of an agreement to make permanent most tax policies 
first enacted in 2001 and 2003 but set to expire at the end of 
2012, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) included 
certain budget process provisions. ATRA reduced the BCA fiscal 
year 2013 sequestration by $24 billion, brought the sequester 
amount from $109.33 billion to $85.33 billion for that fiscal 
year.
    It postponed the BCA sequester (under section 251A of 
BBEDCA) by two months, from January 2, 2013 to March 1, 2013. 
It also postponed the BBEDCA sequester (a separate 
sequestration under section 251(a) of BBEDCA which normally 
would occur 15 days after the end of a session of Congress) 
until March 27, 2013. This section 251(a) sequester enforces 
the spending limit categories rather than the BCA which 
required a sequester for fiscal year 2013 by a nominal amount--
and applied regardless of where spending is relative to the 
spending limits).
    It also reset the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 discretionary 
spending limit categories, lowering the total by $4 billion and 
$8 billion respectively.
    The fiscal year 2013 initially established by the BCA (set 
out in section 251A of BBEDCA) was ordered by the President, as 
required by law, on March 1, 2013.

  THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011 AND THE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

    The Budget Control Act (BCA) established caps on 
discretionary spending that reduced budget authority by $840 
billion and outlays by $756 billion for FY 2012-2021 according 
to CBO. In addition, the BCA called for at least $1.2 trillion 
in additional deficit reduction for this period to be 
accomplished through legislation recommended by a Joint Select 
Committee on Deficit Reduction. When that committee was unable 
to reach agreement on any such legislation, the BCA provided an 
automatic enforcement procedure to ensure this deficit 
reduction was achieved but did so in a way that focused on the 
36 percent of the budget that is approved annually through the 
appropriations process.
    Under the FY 2013 sequester, for example, discretionary 
spending bore 80 percent of the spending cuts and in FY 2014 
discretionary spending is estimated to absorb 84 percent of the 
automatic enforcement reductions. Given the projected 78 
percent growth of mandatory spending programs by 2023, the 
BCA's focus on discretionary spending is inadequate to 
addressing the deficit and debt problems facing the nation. 
Also, these automatic enforcement procedures achieve 50 percent 
of the reductions from defense activities, when defense 
represents less than 20 percent of total spending. Last year, 
House Republicans passed the Sequester Replacement 
Reconciliation Act that would have replaced the FY 2013 
sequester with a much greater emphasis on permanent mandatory 
spending savings. CBO estimated that these mandatory savings 
were more than double the cost of replacing the sequester.
    While the resolution assumes discretionary spending at the 
post-sequester levels, section 409 provides the Chairman of the 
Budget Committee authority to make changes to the allocations, 
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this budget 
resolution to accommodate the enactment of an agreement between 
the House, the Senate, and the President that accomplishes 
permanent reforms of mandatory spending programs and provides 
long-term deficit and debt reduction.

       TABLE 13.--FISCAL YEAR 2014 DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Defense    Non-Defense     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Control Act (PL 112-25)...        556.0        510.0       1066.0
    American Taxpayer Relief Act          -4.0         -4.0         -8.0
     (PL 112-240)\1\.............
                                  --------------------------------------
Pre-Enforcement Procedure Cap....        552.0        506.0       1058.0
    Automatic Enforcement                -54.6        -37.0        -91.6
     Procedure\2\................
                                  --------------------------------------
Post-Enforcement Procedure Cap...        497.4        469.0        966.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The American Taxpayer Relief Act delayed the FY 2013 sequester
  required by the Budget Control Act from January 2, 2013 to March 1,
  2013. The budgetary cost of this two-month delay was partially offset
  by reducing the statutory caps on discretionary spending in FY 2014 by
  $4 billion each for the defense and non-defense categories.
\2\The CBO has estimated that the automatic enforcement procedures under
  the Budget Control Act will reduce the statutory caps on discretionary
  spending by $91.6 billion in FY 2014. However, the definitive
  determination of the amount of the cap reduction will be made by the
  Office of Management and Budget and presented with the President's
  budget. It is expected that the discretionary cap reduction will be
  smaller than that estimated by CBO.


    TABLE 14.--COMPOSITION OF SPENDING AND BCA AUTOMATIC ENFORCEMENT
                   [Percentage of totals, FY 2013-21]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Discretionary   Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Spending..............           39%           61%         100%
BCA Automatic Enforcement......           66%           34%         100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       ENFORCING BUDGETARY LEVELS

                              ----------                              


                THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

    The concurrent resolution on the budget is more than a 
planning document. The allocations of spending authority and 
the aggregate levels of both spending authority and revenues 
are binding on the Congress when it considers subsequent 
spending and tax legislation. Legislation breaching the levels 
set forth in the budget resolution is subject to points of 
order on the floor of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate. The concurrent resolution is established pursuant to 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which includes various 
requirements as to its content and enforcement. While a budget 
resolution sets levels of spending, revenue, deficits and debt, 
it also may include special procedures in order to enforce 
Congressional budgetary decisions.
    While legislation may be subject to a point of order, 
budget-related enforcement is not self-enforcing. Any Member of 
the House may raise a point of order against any tax or 
spending bill that breeches the allocations and aggregate 
spending levels established in the budget resolution. If the 
point of order is sustained, the House is precluded from 
further consideration of the measure.
Section 302(f)
    Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
prohibits the consideration of legislation that exceeds a 
committee's allocation of budget authority. For authorizing 
committees this section applies to the first fiscal year and 
the period of fiscal years covered by the budget resolution in 
force. For appropriations bills, however, it applies only to 
the first fiscal year.
Section 303
    Section 303 prohibits the consideration of spending and 
revenue legislation before the House has passed a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for a fiscal year. Measures that cause 
an increase or decrease in revenue, or cause an increase in 
budget authority, in a fiscal year for which a budget 
resolution has not been adopted violate section 303(a). Section 
303(a) does not apply to budget authority and revenue 
provisions first effective in a year following the first fiscal 
year to which a budget resolution would apply, or to 
appropriation bills after 15 May.
Section 311
    Section 311 prohibits the consideration of legislation that 
would cause a breach of the aggregate spending limits on budget 
authority and outlays, or that would cause revenue levels to 
fall below the revenue floor, established by the concurrent 
resolution on the budget. If a measure would cause budget 
authority or outlays to be greater than the ceiling established 
for the first fiscal year of a budget resolution, a section 311 
violation occurs. If a measure would cause revenue to be lower 
than the revenue floor in the first fiscal year or the period 
of years of the budget resolution, a section 311 violation 
occurs. Section 311 does not apply to measures that provide 
budget authority but do not breach a committee's 302(a) 
allocations.
Section 314(f)
    This section, established by the Budget Control Act of 
2011, prohibits the consideration of any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause 
the statutory spending category limits set out in section 
251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
of 1985 (as adjusted by procedures set out in section 251A of 
that Act) to be exceeded. This budget resolution includes 
language that would prevent this section's application if the 
appropriation measure is not in violation of the section 302(a) 
allocation.

                 BUDGET-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE

    In addition to enforcement controls in the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, as applied through the concurrent 
resolution on the budget, there are also other controls that 
found in the Rules of the House of Representatives and in the 
Orders of the House.
Clause 7 of Rule XXI
    This clause prohibits the consideration of a concurrent 
resolution on the budget containing reconciliation directives 
(section 310 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974) that would cause a net increase in direct 
spending.
Clause 10 of Rule XXI
    House Resolution 5 established in the Rules of the House of 
Representatives a point of order against any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause a 
net increase in direct spending. The rule, termed `Cut-as-you-
go,' prohibits the consideration of legislation that increases 
direct spending over 5 years or 10 years, and requires spending 
increases to be offset by spending decreases over those time 
periods.
Clause 4 of Rule XXIX
    This clause specifies that the Chair of the Committee on 
the Budget is responsible for providing authoritative guidance 
concerning the impact of a legislative propositions related to 
the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending, 
and new entitlement authority.
Section 3 of the Separate Orders of House Resolution 5 of the 113th 
        Congress
    House Resolution 5 adopted the rules from the 112th 
Congress and incorporated additional provisions related to the 
budget process.
    Section 3(d)(3) requires that each general appropriations 
bill contain a ``spending reduction'' account, for which the 
level provided is a recitation of the amount by which, through 
the amendment process, the House has reduced spending in other 
portions of the bill and indicated that such savings should be 
counted toward spending reduction. It provides that any 
amendment increasing spending relative to the underlying bill 
must include an offset of an equal or greater value.

                             RECONCILIATION

                              ----------                              


    Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
U.S.C. 641) sets out a special procedure which allows a 
concurrent resolution on the budget to direct any Congressional 
committee to produce legislation that changes budgetary levels. 
In general, reconciliation instructions include a committee or 
committees, a time period or periods over which budget 
authority, revenue, the debt ceiling, or deficits should be 
changed. It also includes a date certain by which those 
committees should produce and vote on legislative language to 
accomplish those changes. Rather than reporting the legislative 
text, these committees submit it to the Committee on the Budget 
which then binds them all together and may report them but may 
not make substantive changes. If the reconciliation directive 
only applies to a single committee then the text is not 
submitted to the Budget Committee and is reported directly to 
the House.
    This Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 
2014, as reported by the Committee on the Budget, provides for 
such a reconciliation bill. It instructs eight authorizing 
committees to transmit changes in law necessary to achieve 
certain direct spending and revenue levels provided for in the 
budget resolution. They must submit legislative text and 
associated material to the Committee on the Budget by date not 
specified but assumed to be in 2013.
    A committee receiving a reconciliation directive must 
reduce the deficit in period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023. 
A committee may reduce the deficit through net reductions in 
spending or net increases in revenue, or a combination of the 
two. The committees may achieve the deficit reduction specified 
in any manner they wish for laws within their jurisdiction.
    In general, when a committee receives a reconciliation 
directive, it considers a bill to comply with the directive as 
it would any other bill, but the legislative text, along with 
related material, is submitted to the Committee on the Budget 
instead of reported to the House. The Committee on the Budget 
then binds all the submissions together, votes on the combined 
measure, and reports it out of committee as a single bill. The 
Committee on the Budget may not amend the submitted legislative 
text during consideration in committee. It must report the 
language without substantive revision.
    A reconciliation bill is a privileged measure in the 
Senate: As distinct from most Senate bills, it has a time limit 
of twenty hours of debate and does not require the sixty-vote 
supermajority to invoke ``cloture,'' a Senate procedure which 
limits debate on legislation. Hence passage of a reconciliation 
bill in the Senate only requires a simple majority.
    In the Senate, as a limitation on the content of a 
reconciliation bill, a provision that does not increase or 
decrease spending (or revenue) is considered extraneous. If 
found to be extraneous the provision violates section 313 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, commonly known as the 
``Byrd Rule,'' so named after its author, the late Senator 
Robert C. Byrd (WV). If the provision is found to violate the 
Byrd Rule, it is removed from the bill or conference report 
unless 60 Senators vote to waive it.
    The committees receiving reconciliation instructions 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution, and which must submit 
legislative language and related material to the Committee on 
the Budget, are as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the 
Committee on Judiciary, the Committee on Natural Resources, the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee 
on Ways and Means.

             ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

                              ----------                              


             ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

            (Subject to a General Limit of $28,852,000,000)

Financial Services and General Government
          Payment to Postal Service
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
          Employment and Training Administration
          Education for the Disadvantaged
          School Improvement Programs
          Special Education
          Career, Technical and Adult Education
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
          Tenant-based Rental Assistance
          Project-based Rental Assistance

        VETERANS ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

            (Subject to a Separate Limit of $55,483,000,000)

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
          VA Medical Services
          VA Medical Support and Compliance
          VA Medical Facilities

                         VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

                              ----------                              


    Clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII requires each committee 
report to accompany any bill or resolution of a public 
character, ordered to include the total number of votes cast 
for and against on each roll call vote, on a motion to report 
and any amendments offered to the measure or matter, together 
with the names of those voting for and against. Listed below 
are the roll call votes taken in the Committee on the Budget on 
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.
    On March 13, 2013, the Committee met in open session, a 
quorum being present.
    Mr. Price asked unanimous consent that the Chair be 
authorized, consistent with clause 4 of House Rule XVI, to 
declare a recess at any time during the Committee meeting.
    There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
    Chairman Ryan asked unanimous consent to dispense with the 
first reading of the budget aggregates, function levels, and 
other appropriate matter; that the aggregates, function totals, 
and other appropriate matter be open for amendment; and that 
amendments be considered as read.
    There was no objection to the unanimous consent requests.
    The committee adopted and ordered reported the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014. The Committee on 
the Budget took the following votes:
    1. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries, 
and Pocan expressing a sense of the House to replace the 
sequester with revenue increases and spending reductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment offered by Representatives Schwartz, Van 
Hollen, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, 
Cicilline, Jeffries, Pocan, Cardenas, Blumenauer, and Schrader 
to increase funding for transportation investment, 
infrastructure, veterans programs and education, and to raise 
revenues. The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating 
tax deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with 
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules 
for certain equipment, and raising taxes on individuals with 
annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
270 by $7 billion in fiscal year 2014 and outlays by the 
following amounts: $0.400 billion for fiscal year 2014, $2.050 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $2.450 billion for fiscal year 
2016, $1.280 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.675 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $0.010 billion for fiscal year 2019.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
370 by $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and outlays by the 
following amounts: $0.208 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.131 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.174 billion for fiscal year 
2016, $0.189 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.140 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $0.068 billion for fiscal year 2019, $0.043 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.029 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $0.015 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.004 billion for 
fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment would increase outlays for Function 400 by 
the following amounts: $19.920 billion for fiscal year 2014, 
$16.210 billion for fiscal year 2015, $5.780 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $2.350 billion for fiscal year 2017, $1.680 billion 
for fiscal year 2018, $1.350 billion for fiscal year 2019, 
$0.600 billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.500 billion for fiscal 
year 2021, $0.400 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.200 billion 
for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment would increase outlays for Function 450 by 
the following amounts: $0.350 billion for fiscal year 2014, 
$4.800 billion for fiscal year 2015, $6.450 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $3.330 billion for fiscal year 2017, $2.270 billion 
for fiscal year 2018, $1.200 billion for fiscal year 2019, $1 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $1 billion for fiscal year 2021, 
$1.250 billion for fiscal year 2022, $1.250 billion for fiscal 
year 2023.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
500 by the following amounts: $2.866 billion for fiscal year 
2014, $3.066 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.400 billion for 
fiscal year 2016. The amendment would increase outlays for 
Function 500 by the following amounts: $34.282 billion for 
fiscal year 2014, $20.957 billion for fiscal year 2015, $10.248 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $3.082 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $0.612 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.020 billion for 
fiscal year 2019.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
700 by $1 billion in fiscal year 2014. Outlays for Function 700 
would increase by the following amounts: $0.100 billion for 
fiscal year 2014 and $0.225 billion for each of the fiscal 
years 2015 through 2018.
    The amendment would increase outlays for Function 750 by 
the following amounts: $1.500 billion for fiscal year 2014, 
$1.500 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.500 for fiscal year 
2016.
    The amendment would also increase budget authority and 
outlays for Function 800 by the following amounts: $0.872 
billion for fiscal year 2014, $1.963 billion for fiscal year 
2015, $3.157 billion for fiscal year 2016, $4.432 billion for 
fiscal year 2017, $5.844 billion for fiscal year 2018, $7.387 
billion for fiscal year 2019, $9.006 billion for fiscal year 
2020, $10.684 billion for fiscal year 2021, $12.384 billion for 
fiscal year 2022, $14.099 billion for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 21 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL                               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, 
Jeffries and Lujan Grisham expressing a sense of the House 
relating to the distributional impact of tax reform.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 21 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)                             MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham, 
Van Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, 
Cicilline, Jeffries, and Pocan to increase Medicaid spending 
and raise revenues. The amendment would increase revenue by 
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $450,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
for Function 550 by the following amounts: $40 billion for 
fiscal year 2015, $50 billion for fiscal year 2016, $60 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $70 billion for fiscal year 2018, $90 
billion for fiscal year 2019, $100 billion for fiscal year 
2020, $120 billion for fiscal year 2021, $130 billion for 
fiscal year 2022, $150 billion for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, 
Jeffries, Pocan, Blumenauer, and Schrader expressing a sense of 
the House that certain provisions relating to pre-existing 
health conditions and young adults of the Affordable Care Act 
should not be repealed.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. An amendment offered by offered by Representatives 
Castor, Van Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries, Pocan, 
Lujan Grisham, and Cardenas to increase spending for schools 
and raise revenues. The amendment would increase revenue by 
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by 
the following amounts: $23.139 billion for fiscal year 2014, 
$14.348 billion for fiscal year 2015, $6.924 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $1.817 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.124 billion 
for fiscal year 2018, $0.017 billion for fiscal year 2019.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van 
Hollen, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries, Pocan, and 
Lujan Grisham to increase spending on the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and continue the current 
value of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit, 
and the American Opportunity Tax Credit. The amendment would 
increase revenue by eliminating tax deductions for oil 
production and U.S. businesses with international operations, 
changing the depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and 
raising taxes on individuals with annual income greater than 
$1,000,000.
    Budget authority and outlays for Function 500 would be 
increased by the following amounts: $5.097 billion for fiscal 
year 2019, $4.991 billion for fiscal year 2020, $4.898 billion 
for fiscal year 2021, $4.882 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$4.731 billion for fiscal year 2023.
    Budget authority and outlays for Function 600 would be 
increased by the following amounts: $0.600 billion for fiscal 
year 2014, $13.100 billion for fiscal year 2015, $13.500 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $13.800 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $14.200 billion for fiscal year 2018, $30.100 billion for 
fiscal year 2019, $30.600 billion for fiscal year 2020, $31 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $31.6 billion for fiscal year 
2022, $32.2 billion for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, Lee, Cicilline, 
Jeffries, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, and Huffman expressing a sense 
of the House relating to Medicare benefits for seniors and 
persons with disabilities.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Van Hollen, 
Moore, McDermott, Cicilline, Jeffries, Blumenauer, and Schrader 
to reduce funding for Overseas Contingency Operations and to 
increase funding for certain veterans and low income programs.
    Budget authority would be reduced in Function 970 by the 
following amounts: $23 billion for fiscal year 2014 and $35 
billion for each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
    Outlays in Function 970 would be reduced by the following 
amounts: $10.952 billion for fiscal year 2014, $19.928 billion 
for fiscal year 2015, $31.742 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$35.831 billion for fiscal year 2017, $36.579 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $37.150 billion for fiscal year 2019, $37.186 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $37.466 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $38.102 billion for fiscal year 2022, $37.694 billion for 
fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
600 by the following amounts: $0.076 billion for fiscal year 
2014, $0.078 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.079 billion for 
fiscal year 2016, $0.081 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.083 
billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.085 billion for fiscal year 
2019, $0.087 billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.090 billion for 
fiscal year 2021, $0.092 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.094 
billion for fiscal year 2023.
    Outlays would be increased for Function 600 by the 
following amounts: $0.038 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.061 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.070 billion for fiscal year 
2016, $0.075 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.080 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $0.082 billion for fiscal year 2019, $0.084 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.086 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $0.088 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.090 billion for 
fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
920 by the following amounts: $21.704 billion for fiscal year 
2014, $27.262 billion for fiscal year 2015, $34.921 billion for 
fiscal year 2016, $34.919 billion for fiscal year 2017, $34.917 
billion for fiscal year 2018, $34.915 billion for fiscal year 
2019, $34.913 billion for fiscal year 2020, $34.910 billion for 
fiscal year 2021, $34.908 billion for fiscal year 2022, $34.906 
billion for fiscal year 2023.
    Outlays would be increased for Function 920 by the 
following amounts: $10.913 billion for fiscal year 2014, 
$19.865 billion for fiscal year 2015, $27.711 billion for 
fiscal year 2016, $31.288 billion for fiscal year 2017, $33.305 
billion for fiscal year 2018, $33.827 billion for fiscal year 
2019, $34.166 billion for fiscal year 2020, $34.163 billion for 
fiscal year 2021, $34.161 billion for fiscal year 2022, $34.159 
billion for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 noes.
    Ms. Schwartz asked unanimous consent, after the closing of 
the vote, that the record reflect that she would have voted aye 
on the roll call tally #9 offered by Representative Lee.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. An amendment offered by Representatives Blumenauer, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Pocan, 
and Schrader to raise revenues and to increase funding for 
transportation investment and infrastructure. The amendment 
would increase revenue by eliminating tax deductions for oil 
production and U.S. businesses with international operations, 
changing the depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and 
raising taxes on individuals with annual income greater than 
$1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
400 by the following amounts: $15.376 billion for fiscal year 
2014, $63.735 billion for fiscal year 2015, $23.805 billion for 
fiscal year 2016, $15.221 billion for fiscal year 2017, $39.500 
billion for fiscal year 2018, $17.174 billion for fiscal year 
2019, $38.618 billion for fiscal year 2020, $19.887 billion for 
fiscal year 2021, $39.818 billion for fiscal year 2022, $16.681 
billion for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment would increase outlays by the following 
amounts: $1.981 billion for fiscal year 2014, $16.424 billion 
for fiscal year 2015, $27.375 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$19.131 billion for fiscal year 2017, $22.632 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $27.740 billion for fiscal year 2019, $28.879 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $31.494 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $33.472 billion for fiscal year 2022, $35.124 billion for 
fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. An amendment offered by Representatives Cicilline, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, 
Jeffries, and Huffman to increase spending for education and 
raise revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by 
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
500 by the following amounts: $9.540 billion for fiscal year 
2014, $6.930 billion for fiscal year 2015, $7.965 billion for 
fiscal year 2016, $9.004 billion for fiscal year 2017, $9.084 
billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.190 billion for fiscal year 
2019, $9.315 billion for fiscal year 2020, $9.452 billion for 
fiscal year 2021, $9.542 billion for fiscal year 2022, $9.658 
billion for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by 
the following amounts: $7.263 billion for fiscal year 2014, 
$7.269 billion for fiscal year 2015, $7.587 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $8.356 billion for fiscal year 2017, $9.170 billion 
for fiscal year 2018, $9.112 billion for fiscal year 2019, 
$9.223 billion for fiscal year 2020, $9.351 billion for fiscal 
year 2021, $9.475 billion for fiscal year 2022, $9.572 billion 
for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. An amendment offered by Representatives Schwartz, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, and 
Lujan Grisham to increase spending for health research and 
reduce funding for Overseas Contingency Operations.
    The amendment would decrease budget authority for Function 
970 by $3 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would 
decrease outlays for Function 970 by the following amounts: 
$1.529 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.897 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $0.352 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.127 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $0.037 billion for fiscal year 2018.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
550 by $3 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would 
increase outlays by the following amounts: $1.529 billion for 
fiscal year 2014, $0.897 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.352 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.127 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $0.037 billion for fiscal year 2018.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. An amendment offered by Representatives Jeffries, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, 
Lee, Cicilline, Pocan, Cardenas, Blumenauer, and Schrader 
relating to increasing spending on student loan subsidies and 
raising revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by 
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
500 by $1.500 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would 
increase outlays for Function 500 by the following amounts: 
$1.855 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.435 billion for fiscal 
year 2015.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van 
Hollen, Moore, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries, and 
Blumenauer expressing a sense of the House on the importance of 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote.
    15. An amendment offered by Representatives Huffman, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Yarmuth, Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, 
Pocan, and Blumenauer to increase spending for renewable energy 
and to raise revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by 
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
270 by $2.111 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would 
increase outlays for Function 270 by the following amounts: 
$1.061 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.599 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $0.235 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.077 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $0.094 billion for fiscal year 2018.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. An amendment offered by Representatives Cardenas, Van 
Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, and Jeffries to increase the 
recommended levels of revenue for fiscal years 2014 through 
2023. The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating tax 
deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with 
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules 
for certain equipment, and raising taxes on individuals with 
annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The recommended levels of revenue would increase by the 
following amounts: $12 billion for fiscal year 2014, $15 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $18 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$25 billion for fiscal year 2017, $27 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $30 billion for fiscal year 2019, $33 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $36 billion for fiscal year 2021, $39 billion for 
fiscal year 2022, $43 billion for fiscal year 2023.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. An amendment offered by Representatives Schrader, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, McDermott, Lee, and Cicilline expressing a 
sense of the House on achieving deficit reduction through a 
combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. An amendment offered by Representatives Cicilline, 
Schwartz, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, Pocan, and Schrader 
expressing a sense of the House on the importance of Social 
Security.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. An amendment offered by Representatives Cardenas, 
McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, and Pocan expressing a sense of the 
House on the importance of the Mortgage Interest Deduction.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Moore, 
McDermott, Cicilline, and Jeffries expressing a sense of the 
House on a National Strategy to Eradicate Poverty and Increase 
Opportunity.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT     X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, 
McDermott, and Lee expressing a sense of the House on the 
importance of child support enforcement.
    The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
    22. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham, 
Moore, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, and Cardenas to increase 
spending for certain Native American health programs and to 
raise revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by 
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
550 by $0.22 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would 
increase outlays for Function 550 by the following amounts: 
$0.111 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.062 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $0.025 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.008 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $0.009 billion for fiscal year 2018.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,                 X               VAN           X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               SCHWARTZ      X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               YARMUTH       X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               PASCRELL      X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               McDERMOTT
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               LEE (CA)      X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               CICILLINE     X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               POCAN         X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LUJAN         X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               HUFFMAN       X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               CARDENAS      X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               SCHRADER      X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. An amendment offered by Representatives Schrader, 
McDermott, Lee, Lujan Grisham, and Ribble relating to a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
    The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
    24. Mr. Price made a motion that the Committee adopt the 
aggregates, function totals, and other appropriate matter, with 
any amendments.
    The motion offered by Mr. Price was agreed to by voice 
vote.
    Chairman Ryan called up the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for fiscal year 2014 incorporating the aggregates, 
function totals, and other appropriate matter as previously 
agreed.
    25. Mr. Price made a motion that the Committee order the 
Concurrent Resolution reported with a favorable recommendation 
and that the Concurrent Resolution do pass.
    The motion offered by Mr. Price was agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 22 ayes and 17 noes.

                      ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 21--PASSAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,         X                       VAN                  X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE         X                       SCHWARTZ             X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT       X                       YARMUTH              X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL      X                       PASCRELL             X
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT       X                       RYAN, TIM            X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)     X                       MOORE                X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC     X                       CASTOR               X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD      X                       McDERMOTT            X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK         X                       LEE (CA)             X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE        X                       CICILLINE            X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES        X                       JEFFRIES             X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA        X                       POCAN                X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL       X                       LUJAN                X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN     X                       HUFFMAN              X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE      X                       CARDENAS             X
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL        X                       BLUMENAUE            X
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER      X                       SCHRADER             X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI      X                       .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER        X            .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)     X            .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS      X            .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY         X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Price asked for unanimous consent that the Chair be 
authorized to make a motion to go to conference pursuant to 
clause 1 of House Rule XXII, the staff be authorized to make 
any necessary technical and conforming corrections in the 
resolution, and any committee amendments, and calculate any 
remaining elements required in the resolution, prior to filing 
the resolution.
    There was no objection to the unanimous consent requests.


                      AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                              ----------                              


    The Committee on the Budget of the House met on March 13, 
2013 to consider the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 
Fiscal Year 2014. The Committee considered 23 amendments to the 
budget resolution: Two amendments were adopted by voice vote, 
one was defeated by voice vote, and 20 were defeated by roll-
call votes (see the section ``Votes of the Committee'' in this 
report for a description of these votes). Of those 20 
amendments, eleven raised taxes, two cut defense spending, and 
the remaining amendments were ``sense of the House'' 
amendments. The following is a discussion of three of these 
amendments.

     An Amendment Expressing the Sense of the House Related to the 
                  Distributional Impact of Tax Reform

    Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin offered an amendment 
expressing the sense of the House that the budget resolution 
should not allow taxes to be raised on the middle class, 
meaning any individual with adjusted gross income below 
$200,000 or any married couple with adjusted gross income below 
$250,000. It also effectively provided that current-law tax 
rates not be reduced, by stipulating that the resolution 
reflect the tax rates and income thresholds established in the 
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. The Committee defeated 
this amendment. This amendment would have effectively put up a 
roadblock to tax reform. Moreover, if adopted, it would have 
blocked efforts to lower tax rates on middle-class taxpayers as 
part of tax reform. The overwhelming consensus among economists 
is that lowering marginal tax rates and removing distortions of 
the tax code will increase incentives for work, saving, and 
investment. As a result, tax reform that lowers tax rates will 
boost jobs, wages, and economic growth. Tax reform also enjoys 
strong bipartisan support. To that end, the budget resolution 
calls for pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the tax base 
while lowering tax rates.

               An Amendment Related to Provisions in the
                          Affordable Care Act

    During the markup process, an amendment was offered by 
Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky regarding regulations 
prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on 
pre-existing conditions. In addition, the amendment provided 
that other ``benefits'' of the President's health-care law 
should not be repealed. This new health-care law raided the 
Medicare trust fund and increased taxes to fund these new 
benefits. In addition, the Committee believes the health-care 
entitlement expansion and the creation of new health-care 
entitlements will grow to greatly exceed the initial 
projections of their costs. The amendment was defeated because 
on net, the health-care law will increase costs and make it 
harder for Americans to purchase coverage in the first place. A 
better approach to ensure coverage for those with pre-existing 
conditions is to repeal the President's broken health-care law 
and replace it with commonsense reforms that lower costs, 
protect patients, and ensure every family can find a health 
plan that fits their needs.

An Amendment Expressing the Sense of the House on the Mortgage Interest 
                               Deduction

    Representative Tony Cardenas of California offered an 
amendment expressing the sense of the House that it would 
reject any reduction in the mortgage-interest deduction for the 
middle class. It would not allow higher taxes (in the form of a 
reduction in the mortgage-interest deduction) on middle-class 
taxpayers with adjusted gross income below $200,000 ($250,000 
for married couples).
    The Committee defeated this amendment. The Committee 
supports homeownership. It provides numerous benefits to 
Americans. However, this amendment would effectively preclude 
Congress from examining the home-mortgage-interest deduction as 
part of tax reform. The budget resolution calls for pro-growth 
tax reform with lower rates--including lower tax rates for 
homeowners--and a broader tax base. The Ways and Means 
Committee, which has jurisdiction on this matter, will be 
drafting the actual tax-reform legislation and will be deciding 
the details of how to broaden the tax base (i.e., which tax 
preferences may be curbed or eliminated) as it works toward 
this goal. Tax preferences sum to over $1 trillion annually.
    The mortgage-interest deduction is the second largest in 
the tax code, amounting to roughly $90 billion in foregone tax 
revenue annually. At this point, it is unhelpful to the tax-
reform process to label ``sacred cows'' in the tax code or to 
take certain proposals off the table. The amendment would 
prevent policymakers from imposing any limits on the mortgage-
interest deduction for a large segment of taxpayers. For 
instance, in practice it would preserve a situation in which a 
married couple earning $200,000 could deduct their mortgage 
interest on mortgage debt of as much as $1 million on a second 
home.
    In addition, under current law, there is no restriction to 
increasing home-mortgage debt to finance other activities, such 
as purchasing a car or paying for a vacation, which have 
nothing to do with owning a home. Taxpayers who do not own a 
home cannot deduct the interest expense for these activities. 
Before the financial crisis, as housing prices increased, some 
refinanced their mortgages to take equity out of their homes to 
finance other purchases and expenses that had nothing to do 
with owning a home. In addition, under current law, the 
mortgage for purchasing a yacht is deductible, as long as the 
yacht has sleeping quarters, a kitchen, and a toilet.
    Congress may conclude to preserve the current mortgage-
interest deduction, but that should be part of a deliberation 
of the broader benefits of tax reform.

       OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

                              ----------                              


     Committee on the Budget Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to contain 
oversight findings and recommendations pursuant to clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee on the Budget has no findings 
to report at the present time.

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives provides that committee reports must contain 
the statement required by Section 308(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This 
report does not contain such a statement because as a 
concurrent resolution setting forth a blueprint for the 
Congressional budget, the budget resolution does not provide 
new budget authority, new entitlement authority, or change 
revenues.

                General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to contain a 
statement of general performance goals and objectives, 
including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the 
measure authorizes funding. The Committee on the Budget has no 
such goals and objectives to report at this time.

                       Views of Committee Members

    Clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee to afford a 2-day 
opportunity for members of the committee to file minority, 
additional, dissenting, or supplemental views and to include 
the views in its report. The following views were submitted:

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              ----------                              


 The Republican Budget: Protecting Special Interests at the Expense of 
                   Jobs, Key Investments, and Seniors

    This is an important moment for our country. Thanks to the 
ingenuity and resilience of the American people, and the 
emergency actions taken by the President and the Congress four 
years ago, the country is continuing to recover from the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. Momentum in the job 
market continues to grow, but we still have a long way to go to 
help put people back to work, accelerate economic growth, and 
boost small business hiring. We can and we must steadily reduce 
our deficits and reduce and stabilize the debt, but we should 
do so in a way that immediately reduces the jobs deficit, 
rather than immediately making that job deficit worse.
    Unfortunately, this Republican budget fails that simple 
test.
    The non-partisan, independent Congressional Budget Office 
(CBO) has shown that the approach taken in this budget will 
result in 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of this year 
alone. At a time that we should be doing everything possible to 
grow the economy, the CBO has projected that this kind of plan 
will cut economic growth by nearly one-third this year. An 
analysis by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that this 
budget will cost us 2 million jobs next year.



    This issue is not whether we should steadily reduce our 
long-term deficits, but how we do it. Democrats believe that 
our budgets should be blueprints for economic growth that lead 
to greater upward mobility, rising middle class wages, and 
shared prosperity. We believe we should share responsibility 
for reducing the deficit--rather than providing tax breaks for 
the very wealthy while balancing the budget on the backs of our 
middle class, our kids' education and by violating our 
commitments to seniors.
    This Republican budget once again takes an ideological, 
uncompromising approach to addressing our budget challenge. 
Last year we were told the presidential election was going to 
give the American people the opportunity to choose between two 
fundamentally different approaches to this challenge. They 
voted and they chose to reject the lopsided approach reflected 
in this budget.
    The American people rejected the idea of giving additional 
tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of middle 
class taxpayers, at the expense of important commitments we 
have made to our seniors, and at the expense of vital 
investments in our kids' education, in breakthrough scientific 
research, and in our infrastructure that provides the 
hardwiring for our economy--investments that have helped make 
us the world's economic powerhouse.
    Let's address these one at a time.
    Simple math shows that this budget will finance large tax 
cuts for the wealthiest by raising the tax burden on middle 
class tax payers. The budget calls for dropping the top tax 
rate from 39 percent to 25 percent--cutting the tax rate for 
millionaires by over one-third--while holding overall revenues 
constant. Just last fall, the Tax Policy Center analyzed a far 
more modest plan put forward by Mitt Romney to reduce the top 
rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and showed that it would 
inevitably raise the income tax burden on individuals making 
under $200,000 a year. This budget's proposal, which provides 
even bigger tax cuts to millionaires, will raise the tax burden 
on middle incomes families by an average of $2,000. At the same 
time, it does not close one single special interest tax 
loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit--not one dime 
from ending the special breaks for corporate jets, big oil 
companies, or hedge fund managers.
    While providing a tax windfall to the very wealthy, this 
proposal absolutely guts vital investments that are essential 
to shared prosperity, upward mobility, and rising middle class 
wages. It protects Pentagon spending, but it more than doubles 
the already deep sequester cuts to non-defense discretionary 
spending--the category of funds that we use to support our 
kids' education and boost scientific research into new 
discoveries that help cure diseases and fuel innovative 
technologies. At a time when our national infrastructure is in 
desperate need of modernization, this budget will weaken the 
backbone of the American economy. It shortchanges our future 
and is a recipe for national decline.
    The plan violates our commitments to our senior citizens in 
a number of ways. It reopens the Medicare prescription drug 
donut hole, immediately beginning to pile large additional 
bills onto seniors with high prescription drug costs. It takes 
a wrecking ball to Medicaid, slashing it by $810 billion over 
ten years. Remember, two-thirds of these funds are used to help 
seniors and individuals with disabilities. Finally, for 
everyone under 55 who has been paying all their life for 
Medicare insurance, they will now receive a voucher that 
declines in value relative to rising health care costs--leaving 
them to eat the difference. If this is such a good deal for 
seniors, one has to wonder why so many people in the Republican 
caucus opposed the idea of moving the effective date forward by 
even one year.
    Finally, let's look at how this budget hits the political 
target of balance in ten years. First, it includes all the 
revenues generated by the new higher tax rates on individuals 
with taxable incomes over $400,000 a year--a measure that was 
opposed by the overwhelming majority of the House Republicans. 
It is ironic that, after hearing for so long that new revenues 
could not meaningfully contribute to reducing our deficit, this 
budget would not balance without them.
    Even more interesting is that this budget would not balance 
without Obamacare. It is simply a hoax to say this budget both 
balances in ten years and repeals Obamacare. This budget does 
eliminate the important benefits and patient protections from 
Obamacare. It will eliminate provisions that prohibit insurance 
companies from denying insurance coverage based on pre-existing 
conditions, allow young adults to stay on their parents' 
insurance until they're 26 years old, and provide tax credits 
to small businesses to help them afford health insurance for 
their employees. The dirty little secret, however, is that 
while this budget eliminates those important benefits of 
Obamacare, it keeps the rest; it keep all the parts that CBO 
showed helped reduce the deficit.



    Let's look of the $716 billion in Medicare savings that we 
achieved by ending overpayments to the private insurances 
companies and by modernizing the system without reducing 
benefits. We were told last fall that those savings would 
result in hospitals shutting down and a whole parade of other 
horrible consequences. Those scare tactics were not true then, 
and they are not true today. That's why all those savings are 
included in this budget. Remember all the tax revenues in 
Obamacare, those on higher income individuals, those on 
industries that will benefit from the fact that Obamacare will 
expand coverage, and those penalties from people who try to 
freeload on the system? All those taxes and revenues are 
included in this Republican budget, too.
    In fact, the dirty little secret is that this budget would 
not balance if not for the Medicare savings and all the 
revenues from Obamacare. It would fall at least $400 billion 
short in the tenth year. No one can say with a straight face 
that they support this budget and support repealing Obamacare. 
You cannot have it both ways, because if you repeal all of 
Obamacare this budget is totally out of balance.
    There is a very serious consequence of trying to have it 
both ways with Obamacare in this budget. By eliminating the 
Obamacare benefits while retaining the savings and the revenue, 
you will severely undermine our health care system. Many 
hospitals and other providers will go belly up. That is because 
your budget reduces reimbursements to these providers while 
also eliminating the provisions of Obamacare that provide them 
with 27 million more insured patients who will be able to pay 
for care. That is a formula for chaos in the health care 
system.
    The election is over. The American people rejected the 
uncompromising approach taken in this budget. House Democrats 
will present a budget plan on the House floor that takes a 
balanced approach to the nation's budget challenges. It is time 
to bridge our differences, and to end the swings from one 
manufactured budget crisis to another. As we move through the 
budget process over the next few months, Congress must be 
willing to make the hard choices to reach a balanced agreement 
that is good for our country--one that accelerates the recovery 
while laying the foundation for strong economic growth, rising 
wages, and shared prosperity.

                                          Chris Van Hollen.
                                       Allyson Y. Schwartz.
                                           John A. Yarmuth.
                                         Bill Pascrell, Jr.
                                                  Tim Ryan.
                                                Gwen Moore.
                                              Kathy Castor.
                                             Jim McDermott.
                                               Barbara Lee.
                                        David N. Cicilline.
                                        Hakeem S. Jeffries.
                                                Mark Pocan.
                                    Michelle Lujan Grisham.
                                             Jared Huffman.
                                             Tony Cardenas.
                                           Earl Blumenauer.
                                             Kurt Schrader.
                                                  Union Calendar No. 10
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 25

                          [Report No. 113-17]

  Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
  year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
                        years 2015 through 2023.

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014.

  (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
year 2014 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014.

                 TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.

   TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, AND 2050

Sec. 301. Long-term budgeting.

                         TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reform of the 2010 health 
          care laws.
Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare 
          provisions of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate 
          of the Medicare program.
Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 406. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 407. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 408. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 409. Implementation of a deficit and long-term debt reduction 
          agreement.

                  TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 501. Direct spending.

                      TITLE VI--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 601. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 602. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 603. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate 
          budgetary levels.
Sec. 604. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 605. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 606. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
          aggregates.
Sec. 607. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 608. Transfers from the general fund of the treasury to the highway 
          trust fund that increase public indebtedness.
Sec. 609. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/global 
          war on terrorism.
Sec. 610. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                      TITLE VII--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 701. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 702. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 703. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 704. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 705. Policy statement on higher education affordability.
Sec. 706. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the cancellation 
          of unobligated balances.
Sec. 707. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
          dollars.
Sec. 708. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction of 
          unnecessary and wasteful spending.
Sec. 709. Policy statement on unauthorized spending.

                TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Sense of the House on the importance of child support 
          enforcement.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

  The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
fiscal years 2014 through 2023:
          (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this concurrent resolution:
                  (A) The recommended levels of Federal 
                revenues are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2014: $2,270,932,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $2,606,592,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $2,778,891,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $2,903,673,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $3,028,951,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $3,149,236,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $3,284,610,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $3,457,009,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $3,650,699,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2023: $3,832,145,000,000.
                  (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels 
                of Federal revenues should be changed are as 
                follows:
  Fiscal year 2014: $0.
  Fiscal year 2015: $0.
  Fiscal year 2016: $0.
  Fiscal year 2017: $0.
  Fiscal year 2018: $0.
  Fiscal year 2019: $0.
  Fiscal year 2020: $0.
  Fiscal year 2021: $0.
  Fiscal year 2022: $0.
  Fiscal year 2023: $0.
          (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 2014: $2,769,406,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $2,681,581,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $2,857,258,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $2,988,083,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $3,104,777,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $3,281,142,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $3,414,838,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $3,540,165,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $3,681,407,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2023: $3,768,151,000,000.
          (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement 
        of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels 
        of total budget outlays are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2014: $2,815,079,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $2,736,849,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $2,850,434,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $2,958,619,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $3,079,296,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $3,231,642,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $3,374,336,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $3,495,489,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $3,667,532,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2023: $3,722,071,000,000.
          (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 2014: -$544,147,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: -$130,257,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: -$71,544,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: -$54,947,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: -$50,345,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: -$82,405,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: -$89,726,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: -$38,480,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: -$16,833,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2023: $110,073,000,000.
          (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of 
        the public debt are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2014: $17,776,278,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $18,086,450,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $18,343,824,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $18,635,129,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $18,938,669,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $19,267,212,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $19,608,732,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $19,900,718,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $20,162,755,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2023: $20,319,503,000,000.
          (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels 
        of debt held by the public are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2014: $12,849,621,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $13,069,788,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $13,225,569,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $13,362,146,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $13,485,102,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $13,648,470,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $13,836,545,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021; $13,992,649,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $14,154,363,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2023: $14,210,984,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

  The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
2014 through 2023 for each major functional category are:
          (1) National Defense (050):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $560,225,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $579,235,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $574,359,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $563,976,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $585,556,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $570,288,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $598,822,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $575,457,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $612,125,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $582,678,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $625,445,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $600,508,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $639,780,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $614,250,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $654,096,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $628,265,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $671,181,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $649,221,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $688,640,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $660,461,000,000.
          (2) International Affairs (150):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $41,010,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $42,005,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $39,357,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,876,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,355,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,019,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $41,343,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,821,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $42,342,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,922,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $43,349,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,248,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,366,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $41,070,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,898,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $41,970,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $46,240,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,208,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $47,304,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $44,030,000,000.
          (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $27,733,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $27,811,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $28,318,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $28,193,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $28,994,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $28,641,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,677,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $29,251,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $30,386,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $29,932,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,088,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $30,574,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,798,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $31,275,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $32,506,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $31,886,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,244,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $32,609,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,991,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $33,344,000,000.
          (4) Energy (270):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $1,218,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,366,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,527,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,024,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,433,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $984,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,570,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,091,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,764,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,331,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,932,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,612,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $2,121,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,864,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $2,200,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,039,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $2,105,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,989,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $12,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$147,000,000.
          (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,146,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $41,002,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $37,457,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,169,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $36,445,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,860,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $37,295,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,612,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,120,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,378,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,552,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,655,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $39,530,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,167,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $39,730,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,332,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,124,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,330,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $39,792,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,382,000,000.
          (6) Agriculture (350):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $21,731,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $20,377,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $16,737,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $16,452,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $21,254,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $20,827,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,344,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $18,856,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $18,776,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $18,238,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,087,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $18,461,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,380,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $18,864,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,856,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $19,365,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,736,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $19,244,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $20,335,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $19,859,000,000.
          (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $2,548,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$9,000,000,000..
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $7,818,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$19,413,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $7,398,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$21,697,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $6,328,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$22,908,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $2,946,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$20,314,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $866,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$23,410,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $579,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$22,954,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $295,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$17,517,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $1,076,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$19,406,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $1,200,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$20,654,000,000.
          (8) Transportation (400):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $87,056,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $93,142,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,030,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $82,089,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $81,453,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $74,235,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $91,498,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $85,791,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $68,776,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $84,548,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $92,602,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $82,681,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $72,693,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $84,625,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $92,988,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $85,244,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $74,694,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $85,945,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $99,499,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $86,906,000,000.
          (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $8,533,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $27,669,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $8,401,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $22,978,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $8,341,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $16,911,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $8,442,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $13,910,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $8,556,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $10,925,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $8,766,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $9,787,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $8,962,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $9,418,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $9,172,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $9,283,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $9,424,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $9,209,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $9,641,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $9,271,000,000.
          (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
        Services (500):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $56,440,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $77,310,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $73,848,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $77,042,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $85,577,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $84,250,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $95,462,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $93,615,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $100,910,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $99,755,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $95,734,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $95,741,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $97,329,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $97,270,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $98,900,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $98,917,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $99,965,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $100,219,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $101,606,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $101,780,000,000.
          (11) Health (550):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $363,762,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $378,695,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $358,156,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $353,470,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $359,280,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $362,833,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $375,308,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $375,956,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $387,073,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $386,264,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $393,079,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $392,141,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $422,229,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $410,876,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $420,834,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $419,365,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $441,207,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $439,353,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $456,935,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $455,134,000,000.
          (12) Medicare (570):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $515,944,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $515,713,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $534,494,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $534,400,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $581,788,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $581,834,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $597,570,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $597,637,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $621,384,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $621,480,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $679,457,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $679,661,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $723,313,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $723,481,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $770,764,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $771,261,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $845,828,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $843,504,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $875,417,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $874,988,000,000.
          (13) Income Security (600):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $509,418,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $508,082,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $480,285,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $476,897,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $487,623,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $487,046,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $484,222,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $479,516,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $484,653,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $475,612,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $495,065,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $490,660,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $501,101,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $496,983,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $505,927,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $501,832,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $515,637,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $516,362,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $510,654,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $506,354,000,000.
          (14) Social Security (650):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $27,506,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $27,616,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $30,233,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $30,308,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,369,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $33,407,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $36,691,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $36,691,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,005,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,005,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $43,421,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,421,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $46,954,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $46,954,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $50,474,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $50,474,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $54,235,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $54,235,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $58,441,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
          (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $145,730,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $145,440,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $149,792,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $149,313,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $162,051,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $161,441,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $160,947,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $160,117,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $159,423,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $158,565,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $171,032,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $170,144,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $175,674,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $174,791,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $179,585,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $178,655,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $191,294,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $190,344,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $187,945,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $186,882,000,000.
          (16) Administration of Justice (750):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $51,933,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $53,376,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $53,116,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $52,918,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $56,644,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $55,745,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $56,712,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $57,949,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $58,586,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $59,859,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $60,495,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $60,666,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $62,400,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $61,878,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $64,507,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $63,950,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $70,150,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $69,561,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $72,809,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $72,195,000,000.
          (17) General Government (800):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,225,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $24,172,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $21,922,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $20,749,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,263,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $22,559,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,814,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $23,435,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $24,573,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $24,158,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $25,454,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $24,803,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $26,293,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $25,645,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $27,178,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $26,566,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $27,821,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $27,219,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $28,717,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $28,116,000,000.
          (18) Net Interest (900):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $341,099,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $341,099,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $367,647,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $367,647,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $405,960,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $405,960,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $476,448,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $476,448,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $555,772,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $555,772,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $613,411,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $613,411,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $661,810,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $661,810,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $694,647,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $694,647,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $723,923,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $723,923,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $745,963,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $745,963,000,000.
          (19) Allowances (920):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $59,061,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$44,044,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $58,840,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$53,255,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $65,587,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$59,258,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $71,859,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$65,151,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $77,299,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$71,278,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $82,155,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$76,769,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $85,543,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$81,785,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $89,377,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$85,845,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $88,897,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$85,661,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $92,469,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$89,323,000,000.
          (20) Government-wide savings (930):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $9,407,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$6,660,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $21,577,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$9,971,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $17,617,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$8,873,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $13,371,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$6,739,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $11,556,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$3,340,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $9,584,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$703,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $8,457,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,740,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $7,094,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $3,666,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $21,151,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$2,703,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $35,807,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$13,555,000,000.
          (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $75,946,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$75,946,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $80,864,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$80,864,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $86,525,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$86,525,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $90,525,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$90,525,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $91,645,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$91,645,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $99,220,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$99,220,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $101,316,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$101,316,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $106,332,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$106,332,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $109,276,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$109,276,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $115,049,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$115,049,000,000.
          (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
        Terrorism (970):
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $93,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $46,621,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $40,851,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $39,948,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $38,789,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $37,451,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $37,570,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $37,431,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $37,466,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $38,102,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2023:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,000,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $37,694,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

  (a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--The House committees 
named in subsection (b) shall submit, not later than ______, 
2013, recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the 
House of Representatives. After receiving those 
recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a 
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
without substantive revision.
  (b) Instructions.--
          (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on 
        Agriculture shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at 
        least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2013 through 2023.
          (2) Committee on education and the workforce.--The 
        Committee on Education and the Workforce shall submit 
        changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
        reduce the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the 
        period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
          (3) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee 
        on Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws 
        within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
        deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of 
        fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
          (4) Committee on financial services.--The Committee 
        on Financial Services shall submit changes in laws 
        within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
        deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of 
        fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
          (5) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
        Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at 
        least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2013 through 2023.
          (6) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
        Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within 
        its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at 
        least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2013 through 2023.
          (7) Committee on oversight and government reform.--
        The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall 
        submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
        sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least 
        $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013 
        through 2023.
          (8) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on 
        Ways and Means shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at 
        least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2013 through 2023.

  TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, AND 2050

SEC. 301. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

  The following are the recommended revenue, spending, and 
deficit levels for each of fiscal years 2030, 2040, and 2050 as 
a percent of the gross domestic product of the United States:
          (1) Federal revenues.--The appropriate levels of 
        Federal revenues are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2030: 19.1 percent.
  Fiscal year 2040: 19.1 percent.
  Fiscal year 2050: 19.1 percent.
          (2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total 
        budget outlays are not to exceed:
  Fiscal year 2030: 19.1 percent.
  Fiscal year 2040: 19.1 percent.
  Fiscal year 2050: 19.1 percent.
          (3) Deficits.--The appropriate levels of deficits are 
        not to exceed:
  Fiscal year 2030: 0 percent.
  Fiscal year 2040: 0 percent.
  Fiscal year 2050: 0 percent.

                        TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS.

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

SEC. 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REFORM OF THE 2010 
                    HEALTH CARE LAWS.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects 
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, that reforms or replaces the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and 
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not 
increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014 
through 2023.

SEC. 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE MEDICARE 
                    PROVISIONS OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects 
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, that repeals all or part of the 
decreases in Medicare spending included in the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and 
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not 
increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014 
through 2023.

SEC. 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE 
                    OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects 
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, that includes provisions amending or 
superseding the system for updating payments under section 1848 
of the Social Security Act, if such measure would not increase 
the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE TAX CODE.

  In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a 
bill or joint resolution that reforms the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in 
this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any 
such bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, if such measure would not increase 
the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 406. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE AGREEMENTS.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects 
of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, or amendment thereto or conference report 
thereon, that implements a trade agreement, but only if such 
measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal 
years 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 407. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects 
of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on 
Ways and Means, or amendment thereto or conference report 
thereon, that decreases revenue, but only if such measure would 
not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014 
through 2023.

SEC. 408. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary effects 
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, that makes changes to or provides 
for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and 
Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393) 
by the amounts provided by that legislation for those purposes, 
if such legislation requires sustained yield timber harvests 
obviating the need for funding under P.L. 106-393 in the future 
and would not increase the deficit or direct spending for 
fiscal year 2014, the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018, 
or the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.

SEC. 409. IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEFICIT AND LONG-TERM DEBT REDUCTION 
                    AGREEMENT.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this concurrent resolution to accommodate the 
enactment of a deficit and long-term debt reduction agreement 
if it includes permanent spending reductions and reforms to 
direct spending programs.

                 TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 501. 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 2014 is 6.7 
        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 
        2014 is 6.2 percent under current law.
          (3) The following reforms are proposed in this 
        concurrent resolution for means-tested direct spending:
                  (A) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a 
                Democratic president reformed welfare by 
                limiting the duration of benefits, giving 
                States more control over the program, and 
                helping recipients find work. In the five years 
                following passage, child-poverty rates fell, 
                welfare caseloads fell, and workers' wages 
                increased. This budget applies the lessons of 
                welfare reform to both the Supplemental 
                Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid.
                  (B) For Medicaid, this budget converts the 
                Federal share of Medicaid spending into a 
                flexible State allotment tailored to meet each 
                State's needs, indexed for inflation and 
                population growth. Such a reform would end the 
                misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has 
                tied the hands of State governments. Instead, 
                each State would have the freedom and 
                flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that 
                fits the needs of its unique population. 
                Moreover, this budget repeals the Medicaid 
                expansions in the President's health care law, 
                relieving State governments of its crippling 
                one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates.
                  (C) For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
                Program, this budget converts the program into 
                a flexible State allotment tailored to meet 
                each State's needs, increases in the Department 
                of Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan index and 
                beneficiary growth. Such a reform would provide 
                incentives for States to ensure dollars will go 
                towards those who need them most. Additionally, 
                it requires that more stringent work 
                requirements and time limits apply under the 
                program.
  (b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
          (1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average 
        rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the 
        10-year period preceding fiscal year 2014 is 5.9 
        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 2014 is 5.3 percent under current law.
          (3) The following reforms are proposed in this 
        concurrent resolution for nonmeans-tested direct 
        spending:
                  (A) For Medicare, this budget advances 
                policies to put seniors, not the Federal 
                Government, in control of their health care 
                decisions. Those in or near retirement will see 
                no changes, while future retirees would be 
                given a choice of private plans competing 
                alongside the traditional fee-for-service 
                Medicare program. Medicare would provide a 
                premium-support payment either to pay for or 
                offset the premium of the plan chosen by the 
                senior, depending on the plan's cost. The 
                Medicare premium-support payment would be 
                adjusted so that the sick would receive higher 
                payments if their conditions worsened; lower-
                income seniors would receive additional 
                assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; 
                and wealthier seniors would assume 
                responsibility for a greater share of their 
                premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how 
                their health care dollars are spent will force 
                providers to compete against each other on 
                price and quality. This market competition will 
                act as a real check on widespread waste and 
                skyrocketing health care costs.
                  (B) In keeping with a recommendation from the 
                National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility 
                and Reform, this budget calls for Federal 
                employees--including Members of Congress and 
                congressional staff--to make greater 
                contributions toward their own retirement.

                      TITLE VI--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 601. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) The Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform 
        Transparency Act of 2009 provides advance 
        appropriations for the following veteran medical care 
        accounts: Medical Services, Medical Support and 
        Compliance, and Medical Facilities.
          (2) The President has yet to submit a budget request 
        as required under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
        States Code, including the request for the Department 
        of Veterans Affairs, for fiscal year 2014, hence the 
        request for veteran medical care advance appropriations 
        for fiscal year 2015 is unavailable as of the writing 
        of this concurrent resolution.
          (3) This concurrent resolution reflects the most up-
        to-date estimate on veterans' health care needs 
        included in the President's fiscal year 2013 request 
        for fiscal year 2015.
  (b) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in 
subsection (c), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
advance appropriations.
  (c) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided for 
programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to in 
subsection (d)(1) or identified in the report to accompany this 
concurrent resolution or the joint explanatory statement of 
managers to accompany this concurrent resolution under the 
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
  (d) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2015, the aggregate level 
of advance appropriations shall not exceed--
          (1) $55,483,000,000 for the following programs in the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs--
                  (A) Medical Services;
                  (B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
                  (C) Medical Facilities accounts of the 
                Veterans Health Administration; and
          (2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all 
        programs identified pursuant to subsection (c).
  (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
provided in a bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, making general appropriations or any 
new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint 
resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
2015.

SEC. 602. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 603. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS, AND APPROPRIATE 
                    BUDGETARY LEVELS.

  (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending 
Levels.--If a committee (other than the Committee on 
Appropriations) reports a bill or joint resolution, or 
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, providing for a 
decrease in direct spending (budget authority and outlays 
flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year and also provides for an 
authorization of appropriations for the same purpose, upon the 
enactment of such measure, the chair of the Committee on the 
Budget may decrease the allocation to such committee and 
increase the allocation of discretionary spending (budget 
authority and outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on 
Appropriations for fiscal year 2014 by an amount equal to the 
new budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) provided 
for in a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for the 
same purpose.
  (b) Adjustments to Implement Discretionary Spending Caps and 
to Fund Veterans' Programs and Overseas Contingency Operations/
Global War on Terrorism.--
          (1) Findings.--(A) The President has not submitted a 
        budget for fiscal year 2014 as required pursuant to 
        section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, by the 
        date set forth in that section.
          (B) In missing the statutory date by which the budget 
        must be submitted, this will be the fourth time in five 
        years the President has not complied with that 
        deadline.
          (C) This concurrent resolution reflects the levels of 
        funding for veterans' medical programs as set forth in 
        the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
          (2) President's budget submission.--In order to take 
        into account any new information included in the budget 
        submission by the President for fiscal year 2014, the 
        chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
        allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
        budgetary levels for veterans' programs, Overseas 
        Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism, or the 
        302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations 
        set forth in the report of this concurrent resolution 
        to conform with section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget 
        and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted 
        by section 251A of such Act).
          (3) Revised congressional budget office baseline.--
        The chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
        allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
        budgetary levels to reflect changes resulting from 
        technical and economic assumptions in the most recent 
        baseline published by the Congressional Budget Office.
  (c) Determinations.--For the purpose of enforcing this 
concurrent resolution on the budget in the House, the 
allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority, 
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, 
deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2014 and the period of 
fiscal years 2014 through fiscal year 2023 shall be determined 
on the basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on 
the Budget and such chair may adjust such applicable levels of 
this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 604. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

  (a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to 
consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
(other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment 
thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of 
such measure have the net effect of increasing direct spending 
in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described in 
subsection (b).
  (b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of 
this section are any of the four consecutive ten fiscal-year 
periods beginning with fiscal year 2024.

SEC. 605. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1989, the report accompanying this 
concurrent resolution on the budget or the joint explanatory 
statement accompanying the conference report on any concurrent 
resolution on the budget shall include in its allocation under 
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the 
Committee on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary 
administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration 
and the United States Postal Service.
  (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f) 
and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of 
the level of total new budget authority and total outlays 
provided by a measure shall include any off-budget 
discretionary amounts.
  (c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget 
may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels for legislation reported by the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform that reforms the Federal retirement 
system, if such adjustments do not cause a net increase in the 
deficit for fiscal year 2014 and the period of fiscal years 
2014 through 2023.

SEC. 606. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND 
                    AGGREGATES.

  (a) Application.--Any adjustments of the allocations, 
aggregates, and other appropriate levels made pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution shall--
          (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
          (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; 
        and
          (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon 
        as practicable.
  (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in 
this concurrent resolution.
  (c) Budget Compliance.--(1) The consideration of any bill or 
joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
makes adjustments or revisions in the allocations, aggregates, 
and other appropriate levels of this concurrent resolution 
shall not be subject to the points of order set forth in clause 
10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or 
section 604.
  (2) Section 314(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
shall not apply in the House of Representatives to any bill, 
joint resolution, or amendment that provides new budget 
authority for a fiscal year or to any conference report on any 
such bill or resolution, if--
          (A) the enactment of that bill or resolution;
          (B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
          (C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the 
        form recommended in that conference report;
would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget 
authority made pursuant to section 302(a) of such Act for that 
fiscal year to be exceeded or the sum of the limits on the 
security and non-security category in section 251A of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act as reduced 
pursuant to such section.

SEC. 607. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) Costs of Federal housing loans and loan 
        guarantees are treated unequally in the budget. The 
        Congressional Budget Office uses fair-value accounting 
        to measure the costs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but 
        determines the cost of other Federal housing programs 
        on the basis of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 
        (``FCRA'').
          (2) The fair-value accounting method uses discount 
        rates which incorporate the risk inherent to the type 
        of liability being estimated in addition to Treasury 
        discount rates of the proper maturity length. In 
        contrast, cash-basis accounting solely uses the 
        discount rates of the Treasury, failing to incorporate 
        risks such as prepayment and default risk.
          (3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
        the $635 billion of loans and loan guarantees issued in 
        2013 alone would generate budgetary savings of $45 
        billion over their lifetime using FCRA accounting. 
        However, these same loans and loan guarantees would 
        have a lifetime cost of $11 billion under fair-value 
        methodology.
          (4) The majority of loans and guarantees issued in 
        2013 would show deficit reduction of $9.1 billion under 
        FCRA methodology, but would increase the deficit by 
        $4.7 billion using fair-value accounting.
  (b) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or 
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for 
a measure under the terms of title V of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, ``credit reform'', as a supplement to such 
estimate shall, to the extent practicable, also provide an 
estimate of the current actual or estimated market values 
representing the ``fair value'' of assets and liabilities 
affected by such measure.
  (c) Fair Value Estimates for Housing Programs.--Whenever the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office prepares an 
estimate pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 of the costs which would be incurred in carrying 
out any bill or joint resolution and if the Director determines 
that such bill or joint resolution has a cost related to a 
housing or residential mortgage program under the FCRA, then 
the Director shall also provide an estimate of the current 
actual or estimated market values representing the ``fair 
value'' of assets and liabilities affected by the provisions of 
such bill or joint resolution that result in such cost.
  (d) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (b) or (c), 
the chair of the Committee on the Budget may use such estimate 
to determine compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 and other budgetary enforcement controls.

SEC. 608. TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY TO THE 
                    HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC 
                    INDEBTEDNESS.

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

SEC. 609. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
                    GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

  (a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate 
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas 
contingency operations/global war on terrorism. For purposes of 
enforcing such separate allocation under section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal year'' and 
the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be deemed to refer to 
fiscal year 2014. Such separate allocation shall be the 
exclusive allocation for overseas contingency operations/global 
war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such Act. Section 
302(c) of such Act shall not apply to such separate allocation. 
The Committee on Appropriations may provide suballocations of 
such separate allocation under section 302(b) of such Act. 
Spending that counts toward the allocation established by this 
section shall be designated pursuant to section 
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985.
  (b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection (a) 
for fiscal year 2014, no adjustment shall be made under section 
314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any 
adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 610. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

                      TITLE VII--POLICY STATEMENTS

SEC. 701. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) Although the U.S. economy technically emerged 
        from recession roughly four years ago, the recovery has 
        felt more like a malaise than a rebound with the 
        unemployment rate still elevated and real economic 
        growth essentially flat in the final quarter of 2012.
          (2) The enormous build-up of Government debt in the 
        past four years has worsened the already unsustainable 
        course of Federal finances and is an increasing drag on 
        the U.S. economy.
          (3) During the recession and early stages of 
        recovery, the Government took a variety of measures to 
        try to boost economic activity. Despite the fact that 
        these stimulus measures added over $1 trillion to the 
        debt, the economy continues to perform at a sub-par 
        trend.
          (4) Investors and businesses make decisions on a 
        forward-looking basis. They know that today's large 
        debt levels are simply tomorrow's tax hikes, interest 
        rate increases, or inflation - and they act 
        accordingly. It is this debt overhang, and the 
        uncertainty it generates, that is weighing on U.S. 
        growth, investment, and job creation.
          (5) Economists have found that the key to jump-
        starting U.S. economic growth and job creation is 
        tangible action to rein in the growth of Government 
        spending with the aim of getting debt under control.
          (6) Stanford economist John Taylor has concluded that 
        reducing Government spending now would ``reduce the 
        threats of higher taxes, higher interest rates and a 
        fiscal crisis'', and would therefore provide an 
        immediate stimulus to the economy.
          (7) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has stated 
        that putting in place a credible plan to reduce future 
        deficits ``would not only enhance economic performance 
        in the long run, but could also yield near-term 
        benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates 
        and increased consumer and business confidence.''
          (8) Lowering spending would boost market confidence 
        and lessen uncertainty, leading to a spark in economic 
        expansion, job creation, and higher wages and income.
  (b) Policy on Economic Growth and Job Creation.--It is the 
policy of this resolution to promote faster economic growth and 
job creation. By putting the budget on a sustainable path, this 
resolution ends the debt-fueled uncertainty holding back job 
creators. Reforms to the tax code put American businesses and 
workers in a better position to compete and thrive in the 21st 
century global economy. This resolution targets the regulatory 
red tape and cronyism that stack the deck in favor of special 
interests. All of the reforms in this resolution serve as means 
to the larger end of growing the economy and expanding 
opportunity for all Americans.

SEC. 702. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, 
        and promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The 
        U.S. tax code fails on all three counts - it is 
        notoriously complex, patently unfair, and highly 
        inefficient. The tax code's complexity distorts 
        decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to 
        slower economic growth, lower wages, and less job 
        creation.
          (2) Since 2001 alone, there have been more than 3,250 
        changes to the code. Many of the major changes over the 
        years have involved carving out special preferences, 
        exclusions, or deductions for various activities or 
        groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 trillion 
        per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and 
        very complex.
          (3) These tax preferences are disproportionately used 
        by upper-income individuals. For instance, the top 1 
        percent of taxpayers reap about 3 times as much benefit 
        from special tax credits and deductions (excluding 
        refundable credits) than the middle class and 13 times 
        as much benefit than the lowest income quintile.
          (4) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade 
        the code end up narrowing the tax base by as much as 50 
        percent. A narrow tax base, in turn, requires much 
        higher tax rates to raise a given amount of revenue.
          (5) The National Taxpayer Advocate reports that 
        taxpayers spent 6.1 billion hours in 2012 complying 
        with tax requirements.
          (6) Standard economic theory shows that high marginal 
        tax rates dampen the incentives to work, save, and 
        invest, which reduces economic output and job creation. 
        Lower economic output, in turn, mutes the intended 
        revenue gain from higher marginal tax rates.
          (7) Roughly half of U.S. active business income and 
        half of private sector employment are derived from 
        business entities (such as partnerships, S 
        corporations, and sole proprietorships) that are taxed 
        on a ``pass-through'' basis, meaning the income flows 
        through to the tax returns of the individual owners and 
        is taxed at the individual rate structure rather than 
        at the corporate rate. Small businesses in particular 
        tend to choose this form for Federal tax purposes, and 
        the top Federal rate on such small business income 
        reaches 44.6 percent. For these reasons, sound economic 
        policy requires lowering marginal rates on these pass-
        through entities.
          (8) The U.S. corporate income tax rate (including 
        Federal, State, and local taxes) sums to just over 39 
        percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. 
        The total Federal marginal tax rate on corporate income 
        now reaches 55 percent, when including the shareholder-
        level tax on dividends and capital gains. Tax rates 
        this high suppress wages and discourage investment and 
        job creation, distort business activity, and put 
        American businesses at a competitive disadvantage with 
        foreign competitors.
          (9) By deterring potential investment, the U.S. 
        corporate tax restrains economic growth and job 
        creation. The U.S. tax rate differential with other 
        countries also fosters a variety of complicated 
        multinational corporate behaviors intended to avoid the 
        tax, which have the effect of moving the tax base 
        offshore, destroying American jobs, and decreasing 
        corporate revenue.
          (10) The ``worldwide'' structure of U.S. 
        international taxation essentially taxes earnings of 
        U.S. firms twice, putting them at a significant 
        competitive disadvantage with competitors with more 
        competitive international tax systems.
          (11) Reforming the U.S. tax code to a more 
        competitive international system would boost the 
        competitiveness of U.S. companies operating abroad and 
        it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
          (12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers 
        through lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and 
        on investors in diminished returns.
          (13) Revenues have averaged 18 percent of the economy 
        throughout modern American history. Revenues rise above 
        this level under current law to 19.1 percent of the 
        economy, and - if the spending restraints in this 
        budget are enacted - this level is sufficient to fund 
        Government operations over time.
          (14) Attempting to raise revenue through tax 
        increases to meet out-of-control spending would sink 
        the economy.
          (15) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not 
        constitute fundamental tax reform.
          (16) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or 
        eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax 
        rates across the board - not to fund more wasteful 
        Government spending. Tax reform should be revenue-
        neutral and should not be an excuse to raise taxes on 
        the American people.
  (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
resolution that Congress should enact legislation during fiscal 
year 2014 that provides for a comprehensive reform of the U.S. 
tax code to promote economic growth, create American jobs, 
increase wages, and benefit American consumers, investors, and 
workers through revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform, which 
should be reported by the Committee on Ways and Means to the 
House not later than December 31, 2013, that--
          (1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to 
        American families and businesses and reduces the amount 
        of time and resources necessary to comply with tax 
        laws;
          (2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals, 
        with a goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25 
        percent and consolidating the current seven individual 
        income tax brackets into two brackets with a first 
        bracket of 10 percent;
          (3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
          (4) reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent; and
          (5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive 
        system of international taxation.

SEC. 703. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare 
        for their health security.
          (2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly 
        recommended that Medicare's long-term financial 
        challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform, 
        the financial condition of Medicare becomes more 
        precarious and the threat to those in or near 
        retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the 
        Congressional Budget Office--
                  (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be 
                exhausted in 2023 and unable to pay scheduled 
                benefits; and
                  (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than 
                the economy and Medicare outlays are currently 
                rising at a rate of 6.2 percent per year, and 
                under the Congressional Budget Office's 
                alternative fiscal scenario, direct spending on 
                Medicare is projected to exceed 7 percent of 
                GDP by 2040 and reach 13 percent of GDP by 
                2085.
          (3) The President's health care law created a new 
        Federal agency called the Independent Payment Advisory 
        Board (``IPAB'') empowered with unilateral authority to 
        cut Medicare spending. As a result of that law--
                  (A) IPAB will be tasked with keeping the 
                Medicare per capita growth below a Medicare per 
                capita target growth rate. Prior to 2018, the 
                target growth rate is based on the five-year 
                average of overall inflation and medical 
                inflation. Beginning in 2018, the target growth 
                rate will be the five-year average increase in 
                the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plus 
                one percentage point;
                  (B) the fifteen unelected, unaccountable 
                bureaucrats of IPAB will make decisions that 
                will reduce seniors access to care;
                  (C) the nonpartisan Office of the Medicare 
                Chief Actuary estimates that the provider cuts 
                already contained in the Affordable Care Act 
                will force 15 percent of hospitals, skilled 
                nursing facilities, and home health agencies to 
                close in 2019; and
                  (D) additional cuts from the IPAB board will 
                force even more health care providers to close 
                their doors, and the Board should be repealed.
          (4) Failing to address this problem will leave 
        millions of American seniors without adequate health 
        security and younger generations burdened with enormous 
        debt to pay for spending levels that cannot be 
        sustained.
  (b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this 
resolution to protect those in or near retirement from any 
disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future 
beneficiaries the same health care options available to Members 
of Congress.
  (c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the 
Medicare program such that:
          (1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those 
        in or near retirement.
          (2) For future generations, when they reach 
        eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium 
        support payment and a selection of guaranteed health 
        coverage options from which recipients can choose a 
        plan that best suits their needs.
          (3) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-
        service as an option.
          (4) Medicare will provide additional assistance for 
        lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater 
        health risks.
          (5) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path 
        and the Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-
        term.

SEC. 704. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
        disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. 
        Since enactment, Social Security has served as a vital 
        leg on the ``three-legged stool'' of retirement 
        security, which includes employer provided pensions as 
        well as personal savings.
          (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has 
        repeatedly recommended that Social Security's long-term 
        financial challenges be addressed soon. Each year 
        without reform, the financial condition of Social 
        Security becomes more precarious and the threat to 
        seniors and those receiving Social Security disability 
        benefits becomes more pronounced:
                  (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust 
                Fund will be exhausted and program revenues 
                will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
                  (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and 
                Survivors and Disability Trust Funds will be 
                exhausted, and program revenues will be unable 
                to pay scheduled benefits.
                  (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in 
                2033, benefits will be cut 25 percent across 
                the board, devastating those currently in or 
                near retirement and those who rely on Social 
                Security the most.
          (3) The recession and continued low economic growth 
        have exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing 
        Social Security. The most recent CBO projections find 
        that Social Security will run cash deficits of $1.319 
        trillion over the next 10 years.
          (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security 
        for a larger proportion of their retirement income. 
        Therefore, reforms should take into consideration the 
        need to protect lower-income Americans' retirement 
        security.
          (5) The Disability Insurance program provides an 
        essential income safety net for those with disabilities 
        and their families. According to the Congressional 
        Budget Office (CBO), between 1970 and 2012, the number 
        of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled 
        workers and their dependent family members) has 
        increased by over 300 percent from 2.7 million to over 
        10.9 million. This increase is not due strictly to 
        population growth or decreases in health. David Autor 
        and Mark Duggan have found that the increase in 
        individuals on disability does not reflect a decrease 
        in self-reported health. CBO attributes program growth 
        to changes in demographics, changes in the composition 
        of the labor force and compensation, as well as Federal 
        policies.
          (6) If this program is not reformed, families who 
        rely on the lifeline that disability benefits provide 
        will face benefit cuts of up to 25 percent in 2016, 
        devastating individuals who need assistance the most.
          (7) Americans deserve action by the President, the 
        House, and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social 
        Security. It is critical that bipartisan action be 
        taken to address the looming insolvency of Social 
        Security. In this spirit, this resolution creates a 
        bipartisan opportunity to find solutions by requiring 
        policymakers to ensure that Social Security remains a 
        critical part of the safety net.
  (b) Policy Statement on Social Security.--It is the policy of 
this resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis 
to make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution 
assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
          (1) If in any year the Board of Trustees of the 
        Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
        the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual 
        Trustees Report determines that the 75-year actuarial 
        balance of the Social Security Trust Funds is in 
        deficit, and the annual balance of the Social Security 
        Trust Funds in the 75th year is in deficit, the Board 
        of Trustees shall, no later than September 30 of the 
        same calendar year, submit to the President 
        recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to 
        achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a 
        positive annual balance in the 75th-year. 
        Recommendations provided to the President must be 
        agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the Board of 
        Trustees.
          (2) Not later than December 1 of the same calendar 
        year in which the Board of Trustees submit their 
        recommendations, the President shall promptly submit 
        implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress 
        including his recommendations necessary to achieve a 
        positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive 
        annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority Leader of 
        the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House shall 
        introduce the President's legislation upon receipt.
          (3) Within 60 days of the President submitting 
        legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which 
        the legislation has been referred shall report the bill 
        which shall be considered by the full House or Senate 
        under expedited procedures.
          (4) Legislation submitted by the President shall--
                  (A) protect those in or near retirement;
                  (B) preserve the safety net for those who 
                count on Social Security the most, including 
                those with disabilities and survivors;
                  (C) improve fairness for participants;
                  (D) reduce the burden on, and provide 
                certainty for, future generations; and
                  (E) secure the future of the Disability 
                Insurance program while addressing the needs of 
                those with disabilities today and improving the 
                determination process.

SEC. 705. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) A well-educated workforce is critical to 
        economic, job, and wage growth.
          (2) More than 21 million students are enrolled in 
        American colleges and universities.
          (3) Over the last decade, tuition and fees have been 
        growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2001-2002 
        Academic Year and the 2011-2012 Academic Year:
                  (A) Published tuition and fees for in-State 
                students at public four-year colleges and 
                universities increased at an average rate of 
                5.6 percent per year beyond the rate of general 
                inflation.
                  (B) Published tuition and fees for in-State 
                students at public two-year colleges and 
                universities increased at an average rate of 
                3.8 percent per year beyond the rate of general 
                inflation.
                  (C) Published tuition and fees for in-State 
                students at private four-year colleges and 
                universities increased at an average rate of 
                2.6 percent per year beyond the rate of general 
                inflation.
          (4) Over that same period, Federal financial aid has 
        increased 140 percent beyond the rate of general 
        inflation.
          (5) This spending has failed to make college more 
        affordable.
          (6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President 
        Obama noted that, ``We can't just keep subsidizing 
        skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money.''
          (7) American students are chasing ever-increasing 
        tuition with ever-increasing debt. According to the 
        Federal Reserve Bank of New York, student debt nearly 
        tripled between 2004 and 2012, and now stands at nearly 
        $1 trillion. Student debt now has the second largest 
        balance after mortgage debt.
          (8) Students are carrying large debt loads and too 
        many fail to complete college or end up defaulting on 
        these loans due to their debt burden and a weak economy 
        and job market.
          (9) Based on estimates from the Congressional Budget 
        Office, the Pell Grant Program will face a fiscal 
        shortfall beginning in fiscal year 2015 and continuing 
        in each subsequent year in the current budget window.
          (10) Failing to address these problems will 
        jeopardize access and affordability to higher education 
        for America's young people.
  (b) Policy on Higher Education Affordability.--It is the 
policy of this resolution to address the root drivers of 
tuition inflation, by--
          (1) targeting Federal financial aid to those most in 
        need;
          (2) streamlining programs that provide aid to make 
        them more effective;
          (3) maintaining the maximum Pell grant award level at 
        $5,645 in each year of the budget window; and
          (4) removing regulatory barriers in higher education 
        that act to restrict flexibility and innovative 
        teaching, particularly as it relates to non-traditional 
        models such as online coursework and competency-based 
        learning.

SEC. 706. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                    CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) According to the last available estimate from the 
        Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were 
        expected to hold $698 billion in unobligated balances 
        at the close of fiscal year 2013.
          (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary 
        spending made available by Congress that remains 
        available for expenditure beyond the fiscal year for 
        which they are provided.
          (3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and 
        it remains available for obligation indefinitely.
          (4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
        Act of 1974 requires the Office of Management and 
        Budget to make funds available to agencies for 
        obligation and prohibits the Administration from 
        withholding or cancelling unobligated funds unless 
        approved by an act of Congress.
          (5) Greater congressional oversight is required to 
        review and identify potential savings from unneeded 
        balances of funds.
  (b) Policy Statement on Deficit Reduction Through the 
Cancellation of Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees 
shall through their oversight activities identify and achieve 
savings through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated 
balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 
Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under 
programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national 
security, and Treasury authority to finance the national debt.
  (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of the 
Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, and 
other appropriate agencies should make it a high priority to 
review unobligated balances and identify savings for deficit 
reduction.

SEC. 707. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER 
                    DOLLARS.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) The House of Representatives cut budgets for 
        Members of Congress, House committees, and leadership 
        offices by 5 percent in 2011 and an additional 6.4 
        percent in 2012.
          (2) The House of Representatives achieved savings of 
        $36.5 million over three years by consolidating House 
        operations and renegotiating contracts.
  (b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that:
          (1) The House of Representatives must be a model for 
        the responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources and 
        therefore must identify any savings that can be 
        achieved through greater productivity and efficiency 
        gains in the operation and maintenance of House 
        services and resources like printing, conferences, 
        utilities, telecommunications, furniture, grounds 
        maintenance, postage, and rent. This should include a 
        review of policies and procedures for acquisition of 
        goods and services to eliminate any unnecessary 
        spending. The Committee on House Administration should 
        review the policies pertaining to the services provided 
        to Members and committees of the House, and should 
        identify ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the 
        operation of the House gym, barber shop, salon, and the 
        House dining room.
          (2) No taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first 
        class airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of 
        Congress.

SEC. 708. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE REDUCTION 
                    OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) The Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') is 
        required by law to identify examples of waste, 
        duplication, and overlap in Federal programs, and has 
        so identified dozens of such examples.
          (2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight 
        and Government Reform, the Comptroller General has 
        stated that addressing the identified waste, 
        duplication, and overlap in Federal programs ``could 
        potentially save tens of billions of dollars.''
          (3) In 2011 and 2012, the Government Accountability 
        Office issued reports showing excessive duplication and 
        redundancy in Federal programs including--
                  (A) 209 ``Science, Technology, Engineering, 
                and Mathematics'' (``STEM'') education programs 
                in 13 different Federal agencies at a cost of 
                $3 billion annually;
                  (B) 200 separate Department of Justice crime 
                prevention and victim services grant programs 
                with an annual cost of $3.9 billion in 2010;
                  (C) 20 different Federal entities administer 
                160 housing programs and other forms of Federal 
                assistance for housing with a total cost of 
                $170 billion in 2010;
                  (D) 17 separate Homeland Security 
                preparedness grant programs that spent $37 
                billion between fiscal year 2011 and 2012;
                  (E) 13 programs, 3 tax benefits, and one loan 
                program to reduce diesel emissions; and
                  (F) 94 different initiatives run by 11 
                different agencies to encourage ``green 
                building'' in the private sector.
          (4) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion 
        each year for information technology. GAO has 
        identified broad acquisition failures, waste, and 
        unnecessary duplication in the Government's information 
        technology infrastructure. Experts have estimated that 
        eliminating these problems could save 25 percent - or 
        $20 billion - of the Government's annual information 
        technology budget.
          (5) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108 
        billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2012.
          (6) 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.
          (7) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 
        fiscal year 2014, 42 laws will expire, possibly 
        resulting in $685 billion in unauthorized 
        appropriations. Timely reauthorizations of these laws 
        would ensure assessments of program justification and 
        effectiveness.
          (8) The findings resulting from congressional 
        oversight of Federal Government programs should result 
        in programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes 
        and program funding levels.
  (b) Policy 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 reduced or eliminated.

SEC. 709. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING.

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

               TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT 
                    ENFORCEMENT.

  It is the sense of the House that--
          (1) additional legislative action is needed 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; and
          (2) when 100 percent of child support payments are 
        passed to the child, rather than administrative 
        expenses, program integrity is improved and child 
        support participation increases.

                                  
