[House Report 113-403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-403
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                            ON THE BUDGET-- 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2015

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 96

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2015 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2024

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS




 April 4, 2014.--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 2015


113th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                113-403
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

                            ON THE BUDGET--

                            FISCAL YEAR 2015

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 96

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2015 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2024

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS




 April 4, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                        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            JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
KEN CALVERT, California              BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   TIM RYAN, Ohio
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             KATHY CASTOR, Florida
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee               JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            BARBARA LEE, California
BILL FLORES, Texas                   HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          JARED HUFFMAN, California
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi           TONY CARDENAS, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana                 DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
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 2015 Budget Resolution Total Spending 
      and Revenue................................................    10
    Table 2. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Discretionary 
      Spending...................................................    13
    Table 3. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Mandatory 
      Spending...................................................    15
CBO and OMB Differences in Baseline Budget Estimates.............    19
    Table 4. CBO February 2014 Baseline vs. OMB BEA Baseline With 
      Joint Committee Enforcement................................    21
    Table 5. Summary of Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution.......    21
    Table 6. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution vs. the 
      President's Budget.........................................    22
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution....................    25
    Table 7. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and 
      Private Forecasters........................................    30
    Table 8. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget 
      Resolution.................................................    30
    Table 9. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal 
      Years 2013-2019............................................    31
Function-by-Function Presentation................................    39
    050 National Defense.........................................    39
    150 International Relations..................................    43
    250 General Science, Space, and Technology...................    46
    270 Energy...................................................    48
    300 Natural Resources and Environment........................    52
    350 Agriculture..............................................    57
    370 Commerce and Housing Credit..............................    58
    400 Transportation...........................................    64
    450 Community and Regional Development.......................    67
    500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services.....    69
    550 Health...................................................    74
    570 Medicare.................................................    78
    600 Income Security..........................................    82
    650 Social Security..........................................    86
    700 Veterans Benefits and Services...........................    89
    750 Administration of Justice................................    90
    800 General Government.......................................    92
    900 Net Interest.............................................    94
    920 Allowances...............................................    95
    930 Government-Wide Savings..................................    96
    950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts........................    98
    970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism..   100
Revenue..........................................................   103
Direct Spending Trends and Reforms...............................   107
    Table 10. Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   110
    Table 11. Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   111
The Long-Term Budget Outlook.....................................   115
Section-by-Section Description...................................   117
    Title I. Spending and Revenue Levels.........................   117
    Title II. Recommended Long-Term Levels.......................   118
    Title III. Reserve Funds.....................................   119
    Title IV. Estimates of Direct Spending.......................   122
    Title V. Budget Enforcement..................................   122
    Title VI. Policy Statements..................................   126
The Congressional Budget Process.................................   129
    Table 12. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee 
      on Appropriations..........................................   131
    Table 13. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget 
      amounts)...................................................   131
Statutory Controls Over the Budget...............................   135
Enforcing Budgetary Levels.......................................   141
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations...................   145
Votes of the Committee...........................................   147
Amendments Considered by the Committee on the Budget.............   175
Other Matters to be Discussed Under the Rules of the House.......   185
Minority Views...................................................   187
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2015.....   191


                              T A B L E S

                                                                   Page
    Table1.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Total Spending and 
      Revenue....................................................    10
    Table2.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Discretionary 
      Spending...................................................    13
    Table3.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Mandatory Spending.    15
    Table4.CBO February 2014 Baseline vs. OMB BEA Baseline With 
      Joint Committee Enforcement................................    21
    Table5.Summary of Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution.........    21
    Table6.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution vs. the President's 
      Budget.....................................................    22
    Table7.Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and Private 
      Forecasters................................................    30
    Table8.Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget 
      Resolution.................................................    30
    Table9.Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal 
      Years 2013-2019............................................    31
    Table10.Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   110
    Table11.Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   111
    Table12.Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee 
      on Appropriations..........................................   131
    Table13.Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget 
      amounts)...................................................   131


113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-403

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



 
                 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--
                            FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                _______
                                

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2015 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2024

                                _______
                                

 April 4, 2014.--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. 96]
                              INTRODUCTION

                              ----------                              


    Nearly five years after the financial crisis, many families 
still haven't recovered. The typical household's income, when 
adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 2007.\1\ 
Over 46 million people live in poverty today,\2\ and over 90 
million are out of the workforce altogether.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, Jessica C. Smith, 
``Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 
2012,'' U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 
Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, Sept. 2013.
    \2\``Poverty: Highlights,'' U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 
Census Bureau, Accessed 24 Mar. 2014.
    \3\``The Employment Situation--February 2014,'' U.S. Department of 
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Every year since the recession hit, Washington has all too 
often turned to the old standbys: more taxes, more spending, 
and more regulation. The federal government rushed through a 
series of costly remedies: the stimulus package, the Dodd--
Frank law, Obamacare. Washington keeps stepping on the gas, and 
the engine keeps on flooding.
    President Obama and his party promised if Washington took a 
firmer hold of the economy, working families would be better 
off. But in the first few years of his administration, the 
economy grew at less than half the average of all other 
recoveries since World War II.\4\ Economic growth has moved in 
fits and starts since then and, in recent months, has slowed 
considerably.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\``What Accounts for the Slow Growth of the Economy after the 
Recession,'' Congressional Budget Office, Nov. 2012.
    \5\``National Income and Product Accounts, Gross Domestic Product, 
Fourth Quarter and Annual 2013 (Second Estimate),'' U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 28 Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, the national debt has skyrocketed and continues 
to climb--well after the recession. In May 2013, the 
Congressional Budget Office projected the federal government 
would add $6.3 trillion to the national debt from 2014 to 2023. 
But in February 2014--not even a year later--CBO revised its 
forecast to $7.3 trillion--a $1 trillion increase. It 
attributed most of the hike to a drop in revenue, the 
inevitable result of a lackluster economy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,'' Congressional 
Budget Office, Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget and the economy are closely linked. Just as a 
weak economy can drag the budget into the red, a responsible 
budget can help propel the economy forward. So if Washington is 
serious about helping working families, then it needs to get 
serious about the national debt.

                    What's Holding the Economy Back?

    And Washington needs to act fast--because the economy is 
losing steam. Last year, CBO predicted the economy would grow, 
on average, by 2.9 percent each year over the next decade.\7\ 
This year, it predicts the economy will grow by only 2.5 
percent--a deceptively small change with big, long-term 
consequences.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2013 to 2023,'' Congressional 
Budget Office, Feb. 2013.
    \8\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,'' Congressional 
Budget Office, Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One major problem is that people are leaving the labor 
market. Today, only 63 percent of the population has a job or 
is looking for one--the lowest level since 1978.\9\ And CBO 
predicts it will continue to decline. That's partly because the 
baby-boom generation is retiring, and the population as a whole 
is getting older. But it's also because fewer people are 
joining the workforce.\10\ And the administration's policies 
have made things worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\``Databases, Table, and Calculators by Subject,'' Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Accessed 25 Mar. 2014.
    \10\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Take Obamacare. CBO says the law will discourage work. 
People will receive smaller health-insurance subsidies as they 
make more money. So for many families, it just will not pay to 
work. As a result, people will put in fewer hours, and the 
effect will be huge--as if 2.5 million people had stopped 
working full time by 2024.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The administration has tried to spin this as good news and 
argued that work was just getting in the way. But the problem 
isn't that too many people are working. The problem is not 
enough people can find work. And if more people leave the 
workforce, the economy will shrink. There will be less 
opportunity, not more.
    And the national debt will only get bigger. In the past few 
years, Congress has achieved some modest spending restraint, 
primarily by reducing discretionary spending. But Washington 
hasn't done nearly enough to make a serious dent in the debt. 
Under current law, the deficit will start growing in just two 
years. By 2022, the U.S. will be running trillion-dollar 
deficits again--even though the federal government will be 
taking in a historically large share of revenue. That's because 
spending will be growing twice as fast as revenue. So over the 
next ten years, the national debt will grow by $10 trillion--
for a grand total of $27 trillion.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet the President wants to double down. In his latest 
budget request, he wants to increase spending by $791 billion 
through 2024. He wants to undo the recent bipartisan budget 
agreement and increase spending by $56 billion in 2015 alone. 
He's abandoned the one significant reform he's embraced--what 
his own administration has called a ``more accurate'' measure 
of inflation. And he wants to raise taxes on families and job 
creators by $1.8 trillion--though that's on top of the $1.7 
trillion he's already imposed. In short, the President wants 
families to pay more so Washington can spend more.
    And even with those extra tax hikes, the deficit will still 
be back above $1 trillion by 2022. The President's budget never 
balances--ever. Instead, it allows our debt to spiral out of 
control.
    If the last five years are any indication, that simply 
won't work. And if we don't change course soon, both the budget 
and the economy will continue to decline. What the country 
really needs is an alternative. The administration has bottled 
up the forces of innovation and free enterprise; we need to 
invigorate them. We need a plan that will provide for the 
nation's needs, that will allow families and job creators to 
rebuild the economy, and that will finally balance the budget.

                        The Path to Prosperity:
                     A Responsible, Balanced Budget

    That's exactly what this budget, the Path to Prosperity, 
will do. It calls for a number of reforms that will improve the 
lives of all Americans.
    By balancing the budget, the Path to Prosperity will 
promote economic growth. Over the next ten years, it will cut 
$5.1 trillion in spending, and CBO has said that such a plan 
would help the economy.\13\ By paying down the debt, the 
federal government will help keep interest rates low, which 
will spur greater investment and productivity. And by giving 
job creators some certainty and workers some relief, the Path 
to Prosperity will give free enterprise some much-needed help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\``Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Path to Prosperity balances the budget by tackling the 
drivers of our debt: autopilot spending and interest payments. 
It strengthens critical programs like Medicare by giving 
seniors more control over their health-care. CBO has said that 
such a reform would not only help the federal government save 
money but help seniors save money as well.\14\ It is the 
ultimate win-win.
    But the Path to Prosperity is not just a budget--it is a 
blueprint for the country's future. It calls for fundamental 
reforms in key areas like the tax code, energy, welfare, and 
health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\``A Premium Support System for Medicare: Analysis of 
Illustrative Options,'' Congressional Budget Office, Sept. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, taxpayers spend $168 billion\15\ and 6.1 billion 
hours per year trying to file their tax returns.\16\ And what's 
worse, the tax code stifles economic growth. Our corporate tax 
rate is the highest in the industrialized world,\17\ and the 
tax code is full of loopholes and deductions that serve only 
the well-connected. Independent economists agree that a plan to 
lower rates and broaden the base would spur economic growth. 
There are a number of good tax-reform proposals. Although the 
Path to Prosperity does not embrace any particular proposal, it 
calls for a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and more 
competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\National Taxpayer Advocate, 2012 Annual Report to Congress, 
Internal Revenue Service, 9 Jan. 2013.
    \16\National Taxpayer Advocate, 2013 Annual Report to Congress, 
Internal Revenue Service, 31 Dec. 2013.
    \17\Kyle Pomerleau and Andrew Lundeen, ``The U.S. Has the Highest 
Corporate Income Tax Rate in the OECD,'' Tax Foundation, 27 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It also calls for greater energy development. It's not 
surprising that the state with the lowest unemployment rate--
2.6 percent--is North Dakota,\18\ where an energy boom has 
lifted the state economy. Today, a reinvigorated oil and gas 
industry is creating many new jobs--and they are good-paying 
jobs. The average wage in the oil and gas sector is over 
$92,000 a year.\19\ The Path to Prosperity builds on this 
success by opening more federal lands to energy development, so 
more families can share in this opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\``Local Area Unemployment Statistics,'' Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Accessed 25 Mar. 2014.
    \19\``May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment 
and Wage Estimates,'' Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 6 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Path to Prosperity also recognizes that we owe families 
in need much better than the status quo. Rather than provide a 
roadmap out of poverty, Washington has created a complex web of 
programs that are often difficult to navigate. Some programs 
provide critical aid. Others discourage families from getting 
ahead. This budget takes some initial steps in the right 
direction by rethinking our job-training programs, reforming 
Medicaid, and encouraging work. It also creates the space for 
greater reform. Both sides of the political spectrum agree that 
poverty is a problem and should work together to expand 
opportunity for all Americans.
    The Path to Prosperity also will strengthen our health-care 
system by repealing Obamacare. The health-care law has been a 
costly mistake, so this plan calls for a full replacement. It 
clears the way for patient-centered reforms that will help 
increase access, improve quality, and lower costs.
    The status quo means weak economic growth and invites a 
fiscal crisis. The Path to Prosperity is the alternative the 
country needs. It expands opportunity by growing the 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. It ends 
Washington's culture of reckless spending. And it will help to 
build an America that works.

                         1. Protect the Nation

    The first job of the federal government is to protect the 
country 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, the 
men and women of the United States' military have performed 
superbly. This budget rejects the President's cuts to national 
security. It 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 funding consistent with America's military 
goals and strategies.
     Fully fund our nation's commitment to veterans.

                         2. Expand Opportunity

    Though not sufficient by themselves, federal policies can 
help foster a stronger economy. This budget seeks to equip 
Americans with the skills they need in a 21st-century economy 
and to create jobs 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.
     Tailor aid for higher education to the truly 
needy.
     Eliminate ineffective and duplicative education 
programs.
     Consolidate job-training programs, as in the 
SKILLS Act, into 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.
     Consolidate the current seven tax brackets.
     Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
     Reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent.
     Adopt a more competitive system of international 
taxation.

                      3. Strengthen the Safety Net

    This budget applies the lessons of welfare reform to other 
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.
    Although this budget does not lay out a full welfare-reform 
plan, it takes steps toward reforming these programs to 
encourage work, to increase economic growth and jobs, and to 
preserve the safety net.
Welfare reform in brief
     Allow states to customize SNAP to the needs of 
their citizens.
     Empower reformers at the state level to strengthen 
and secure Medicaid.
     Address barriers to upward mobility.
     Expand welfare's work requirements.

                     4. Secure Seniors' Retirement

    This budget protects and strengthens Medicare for current 
and future generations. It also requires the President and 
Congress to work together to develop 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.
     Strengthen Medicare for younger generations.
     End Obamacare's raid on the Medicare Trust Fund.
     Repeal all of Obamacare, including the Independent 
Payment Advisory Board.
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
     Reduce the size of the federal workforce.
     Reform civil-service pensions.
     Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

                          5. Restore Fairness

    The administration's uncontrolled, wasteful spending in 
combination with an overzealous regulatory agenda has weakened 
an anemic economy and hurt 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
     Strengthen American energy security.
     Restore competition to the energy sector.
     Scale back corporate subsidies in the energy 
industry.
     Unlock America's vast energy resources while 
protecting the environment.
     Stop the government from buying up unnecessary 
land.
Housing and finance in brief
     Wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
     Provide a true account of trillions in federal 
loans and guarantees.
     Revisit flawed financial regulations.
     Eliminate corporate welfare.
Health care in brief
     Repeal Obamacare.
     Move toward patient-centered reform.
Cutting spending in brief
     Cap spending.
     Eliminate waste.

                      6. Reform the Budget Process

    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 five of the past six years.
    By contrast, the Republican majority in the House has met 
its legal and moral obligation by passing a budget that tackles 
America's most pressing fiscal challenges. Earlier this 
Congress, the House Budget Committee authored and advanced 
several statutory reforms to bring more accountability to the 
federal budget process. This budget works in the spirit of 
those proposed reforms.
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.
    Ultimately, the budget is more than a list of numbers. It's 
an expression of our governing philosophy. This budget offers 
the American people a brighter future. It would stop spending 
money we don't have. It would help create jobs and expand 
opportunity. And it would restore the promise of this 
exceptional nation.

                                                                                 TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION TOTAL SPENDING AND REVENUE
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Fiscal year                             2015         2016         2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023         2024            2015-2019             2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA......................................................    3,589,959    3,649,847    3,799,988    3,956,908    4,166,029    4,380,011    4,549,315    4,749,721    4,900,052    5,032,850        19,162,732            42,774,681
  OT......................................................    3,663,737    3,676,443    3,786,896    3,926,636    4,134,476    4,334,263    4,515,643    4,733,462    4,865,402    4,995,085        19,188,188            42,632,043
On-budget:
  BA......................................................    2,842,226    2,858,059    2,957,321    3,059,410    3,210,987    3,360,435    3,460,524    3,587,380    3,660,151    3,706,695        14,928,003            32,703,188
  OT......................................................    2,920,026    2,889,484    2,949,261    3,034,773    3,185,472    3,320,927    3,433,392    3,577,963    3,632,642    3,676,374        14,979,017            32,620,316
Off-budget:
  BA......................................................      747,734      791,788      842,668      897,499      955,042    1,019,576    1,088,791    1,162,341    1,239,901    1,326,155         4,234,730            10,071,493
  OT......................................................      743,711      786,959      837,636      891,863      949,004    1,013,336    1,082,251    1,155,499    1,232,759    1,318,711         4,209,172            10,011,727
Revenues:
  Total...................................................    3,304,911    3,481,127    3,631,022    3,770,315    3,932,192    4,103,643    4,288,242    4,490,237    4,702,070    4,926,144        18,119,567            40,629,903
  On-budget...............................................    2,533,841    2,676,038    2,789,423    2,890,308    3,014,685    3,148,637    3,294,650    3,456,346    3,626,518    3,807,452        13,904,295            31,237,899
  Off-budget..............................................      771,070      805,088      841,599      880,008      917,507      955,006      993,591    1,033,890    1,075,552    1,118,691         4,215,272             9,392,004
Recommended change in revenues:
  Total...................................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0                 0                     0
  On-budget...............................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0                 0                     0
  Off-budget..............................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0                 0                     0
Surplus(+)/Deficit(-):
  Total...................................................     -379,826     -226,316     -179,875     -147,321     -198,284     -205,620     -191,401     -199,225     -104,332        5,059        -1,131,621            -1,827,140
    Macroeconomic fiscal impact...........................      -21,000      -31,000      -24,000        9,000        4,000       25,000       36,000       44,000       59,000       74,000           -63,000               175,000
    On-budget.............................................     -386,186     -213,446     -159,838     -144,466     -170,787     -172,290     -138,741     -121,617       -6,124      131,078        -1,074,722            -1,382,417
    Off-budget............................................       27,360       18,130        3,963      -11,855      -31,497      -58,329      -88,660     -121,608     -157,208     -200,019             6,100              -619,724
Debt held by the public (end of year).....................   13,213,000   13,419,000   13,800,000   13,860,000   14,080,000   14,427,000   14,579,000   14,940,000   15,080,000   15,176,000  ....................  ....................
Debt subject to limit (end of year).......................   18,304,357   18,627,533   19,172,590   19,411,553   19,773,917   20,227,349   20,449,374   20,822,448   20,981,807   21,089,365  ....................  ....................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
  BA......................................................      528,927      573,792      597,895      611,146      624,416      638,697      653,001      669,967      687,393      706,218         2,936,176             6,291,452
  OT......................................................      566,503      573,064      584,252      593,795      611,902      626,175      640,499      661,181      672,922      685,796         2,929,515             6,216,089
International Affairs (150):
  BA......................................................       38,695       39,734       40,642       41,589       42,513       43,497       44,004       45,271       46,287       47,349           203,173               429,581
  OT......................................................       39,029       37,976       38,229       38,822       39,553       40,114       40,701       41,749       42,667       43,624           193,609               402,464
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
  BA......................................................       27,941       28,493       29,113       29,764       30,413       31,096       31,782       32,493       33,210       33,955           145,724               308,260
  OT......................................................       27,927       28,240       28,750       29,350       29,938       30,589       31,174       31,870       32,576       33,304           144,205               303,718
Energy (270):
  BA......................................................        4,228        3,820        2,048        1,762        1,788        1,851          -16       -1,018       -1,914       -6,113            13,646                 6,436
  OT......................................................        5,751        3,416        1,400        1,192        1,278        1,384         -346       -1,283       -2,188       -6,699            13,037                 3,905
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
  BA......................................................       34,289       34,491       35,077       33,047       36,859       38,169       36,428       38,979       39,927       40,592           173,763               367,858
  OT......................................................       39,311       37,747       36,204       33,316       36,779       37,877       36,379       38,749       39,733       39,752           183,357               375,848
Agriculture (350):
  BA......................................................       19,042       22,506       20,527       18,506       18,654       19,008       19,263       19,764       20,017       20,635            99,235               197,922
  OT......................................................       19,556       22,313       19,992       17,883       17,970       18,440       18,763       19,249       19,516       20,131            97,714               193,813
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................       -3,239       -4,518       -7,672       -7,385       -6,658       -3,937       -4,034       -4,794       -5,073       -5,118           -29,472               -52,428
    OT....................................................      -14,762      -18,633      -23,217      -24,136      -28,258      -26,052      -20,982      -23,197      -24,597      -25,793          -109,006              -229,627
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................       -1,077       -1,528       -1,491       -1,489       -1,486       -1,485       -1,537       -1,588       -1,642       -1,695            -7,071               -15,018
    OT....................................................       -1,077       -1,528       -1,491       -1,489       -1,487       -1,486       -1,538       -1,589       -1,643       -1,696            -7,072               -15,024
Transportation (400):
  BA......................................................       34,713       68,529       74,454       75,978       77,501       78,373       79,369       80,529       81,829       83,353           331,175               734,628
  OT......................................................       80,659       69,907       75,199       77,558       78,163       79,056       80,231       81,409       82,872       84,024           381,486               789,078
Community & Regional Development (450):
  BA......................................................       14,556       15,303       15,269       15,414       15,387       15,283       15,421       15,658       15,954       16,302            75,929               154,547
  OT......................................................       23,608       21,425       19,292       17,840       16,841       16,008       14,679       13,408       13,490       13,910            99,006               170,501
Education,Training,Employment,andSocialServices (500):
  BA......................................................       73,908       82,372       86,699       89,536       85,278       86,555       87,749       89,167       90,661       92,094           417,794               864,022
  OT......................................................       91,759       84,521       87,137       89,808       86,074       87,130       88,403       89,839       91,360       92,926           439,299               888,958
Health (550):
  BA......................................................      419,799      367,238      377,752      376,732      390,437      415,814      419,124      433,512      449,181      472,300         1,931,958             4,121,889
  OT......................................................      416,573      370,205      375,839      377,346      390,404      405,309      418,298      432,149      447,991      471,312         1,930,367             4,105,426
Medicare (570):
  BA......................................................      519,196      558,895      570,144      590,695      651,579      692,307      737,455      815,257      836,296      859,011         2,890,509             6,830,835
  OT......................................................      519,407      558,964      570,341      591,117      651,878      692,644      738,042      817,195      837,883      866,262         2,891,707             6,843,733
Income Security (600):
  BA......................................................      505,729      487,645      489,766      492,129      493,996      512,717      520,016      529,438      530,839      525,701         2,469,265             5,087,976
  OT......................................................      505,032      490,122      487,105      484,280      490,014      508,689      515,475      529,111      525,624      515,225         2,456,553             5,050,677

Social Security (650):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................       31,442       34,245       37,133       40,138       43,383       46,747       50,255       53,941       57,800       58,441           186,341               453,525
    OT....................................................       31,517       34,283       37,133       40,138       43,383       46,747       50,255       53,941       57,800       58,441           186,454               453,638
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................      864,514      909,753      963,029    1,021,768    1,085,632    1,154,095    1,225,833    1,300,728    1,378,255    1,462,797         4,844,696            11,366,404
    OT....................................................      860,491      904,924      957,997    1,016,132    1,079,595    1,147,856    1,219,294    1,293,887    1,371,114    1,455,354         4,819,139            11,306,644
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
  BA......................................................      153,027      164,961      163,858      162,388      174,305      179,269      183,571      195,680      192,458      189,292           818,539             1,758,809
  OT......................................................      152,978      164,807      163,269      161,646      173,499      178,380      182,676      194,719      191,491      188,262           816,199             1,751,727
Administration of Justice (750):
  BA......................................................       54,011       56,932       56,770       58,405       60,239       62,146       64,263       66,967       69,031       71,166           286,358               619,931
  OT......................................................       54,250       56,298       58,319       59,095       60,501       61,649       63,734       66,411       68,455       70,568           288,463               619,280
General Government (800):
  BA......................................................       23,710       23,064       21,587       23,269       24,040       24,759       25,556       26,353       27,097       27,912           115,670               247,347
  OT......................................................       23,618       22,826       21,674       22,973       23,582       24,331       25,139       25,939       26,691       27,491           114,673               244,264
Net Interest (900):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................      365,987      416,238      482,228      553,820      611,852      659,310      693,159      723,805      751,215      770,124         2,430,125             6,027,737
    OT....................................................      365,987      416,238      482,228      553,820      611,852      659,310      693,159      723,805      751,215      770,124         2,430,125             6,027,737
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................      -98,709      -98,858     -100,630     -103,830     -109,424     -112,610     -114,314     -114,823     -113,941     -111,363          -511,452            -1,078,504
    OT....................................................      -98,709      -98,858     -100,630     -103,830     -109,424     -112,610     -114,314     -114,823     -113,941     -111,363          -511,452            -1,078,504
Allowances (920):
  BA......................................................      -36,364      -47,825      -51,416      -54,566      -56,672      -61,825      -64,552      -66,871      -68,992      -65,972          -246,843              -575,055
  OT......................................................      -22,676      -36,706      -45,014      -49,571      -53,542      -58,102      -61,040      -63,946      -66,322      -64,338          -207,509              -521,257
Government-Wide Savings (930):
  BA......................................................       25,904      -14,151      -30,525      -38,302      -46,446      -55,559      -63,060      -75,189      -87,334     -117,125          -103,520              -501,788
  OT......................................................       20,052       -1,701      -17,482      -27,789      -35,547      -44,608      -53,317      -64,007      -75,209      -96,353           -62,467              -395,962
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................      -78,632      -83,652      -83,974      -84,602      -91,824      -93,787      -98,176     -101,529     -105,731     -113,422          -422,684              -935,329
    OT....................................................      -78,632      -83,652      -83,974      -84,602      -91,824      -93,787      -98,176     -101,529     -105,731     -113,422          -422,684              -935,329

  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................      -16,994      -17,579      -18,240      -18,950      -19,680      -20,424      -21,191      -21,976      -22,771      -23,584           -91,443              -201,389
    OT....................................................      -16,994      -17,579      -18,240      -18,950      -19,680      -20,424      -21,191      -21,976      -22,771      -23,584           -91,443              -201,389
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
 (970):
  BA......................................................       85,357       29,946       29,946       29,946       29,946       29,946       29,946            0            0            0           205,141               265,033
  OT......................................................       52,580       37,823       32,585       30,893       31,032       29,647       29,647       11,200        4,402        1,827           184,912               261,634
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Only on-budget amounts for fiscal years 2015-2024 are entered into the budget resolution legislative text. Off-budget amounts are shown for display purposes only.


                                                                                   TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Fiscal year                             2015         2016         2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023         2024            2015-2019             2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA......................................................    1,098,985    1,045,929    1,063,201    1,080,766    1,098,630    1,116,798    1,135,274    1,124,119    1,143,229    1,162,664         5,387,511            11,069,593
  OT......................................................    1,185,938    1,128,700    1,114,609    1,118,684    1,136,428    1,151,173    1,166,284    1,170,334    1,177,594    1,187,700         5,684,358            11,537,443
Base Defense (050):
  BA......................................................      521,272      566,000      590,000      603,000      616,000      630,000      644,000      660,744      677,923      695,549         2,896,272             6,204,488
  OT......................................................      558,846      565,135      576,177      585,469      603,360      617,404      631,450      651,917      663,415      675,120         2,888,986             6,128,293
Base Non Defense:
  BA......................................................      492,356      449,983      443,255      447,820      452,684      456,852      461,328      463,375      465,306      467,115         2,286,098             4,600,072
  OT......................................................      574,512      525,742      505,847      502,323      502,036      504,122      505,187      507,217      509,777      510,753         2,610,459             5,147,516
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
  BA......................................................      521,272      566,000      590,000      603,000      616,000      630,000      644,000      660,744      677,923      695,549         2,896,272             6,204,488
  OT......................................................      558,846      565,135      576,177      585,469      603,360      617,404      631,450      651,917      663,415      675,120         2,888,986             6,128,293
International Affairs (150):
  BA......................................................       39,097       39,859       40,708       41,608       42,496       43,438       44,389       45,401       46,405       47,459           203,768               430,860
  OT......................................................       40,164       39,329       39,968       40,670       41,459       42,010       42,596       43,443       44,405       45,409           201,590               419,453
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
  BA......................................................       27,841       28,393       29,013       29,664       30,313       30,996       31,682       32,393       33,110       33,855           145,224               307,260
  OT......................................................       27,829       28,140       28,650       29,250       29,838       30,489       31,074       31,770       32,476       33,204           143,707               302,720

Energy (270):
  BA......................................................        2,720        2,774        2,832        2,893        2,960        3,025        3,093        3,157        3,228        3,303            14,179                29,985
  OT......................................................        4,484        3,075        2,958        2,988        3,025        3,079        3,146        3,210        3,224        3,295            16,530                32,484
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
  BA......................................................       32,244       33,126       34,106       35,163       36,234       37,343       38,487       39,682       40,858       42,084           170,873               369,327
  OT......................................................       37,259       36,106       34,949       35,347       36,085       37,162       38,276       39,433       40,538       41,143           179,746               376,299
Agriculture (350):
  BA......................................................        6,090        6,245        6,421        6,610        6,797        6,997        7,206        7,413        7,629        7,851            32,163                69,259
  OT......................................................        6,000        6,159        6,338        6,520        6,707        6,905        7,110        7,315        7,527        7,744            31,724                68,325
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
  On-Budget:
    BA....................................................      -13,189      -13,160      -12,187      -11,242      -10,581       -8,324       -8,818       -8,926       -8,911       -8,815           -60,359              -104,153
    OT....................................................      -12,725      -12,923      -12,180      -11,290      -10,664       -8,433       -8,927       -9,039       -9,026       -8,938           -59,782              -104,145
  Off-Budget:
    BA....................................................          263          273          283          294          306          318          330          344          356          370             1,419                 3,137
    OT....................................................          263          273          283          294          305          317          329          343          355          369             1,418                 3,131
Transportation (400):
  BA......................................................       30,908       31,721       32,617       33,581       34,536       35,543       36,572       37,631       38,700       38,259           163,363               350,068
  OT......................................................       79,408       68,510       73,727       76,073       76,696       77,559       78,688       79,797       81,180       80,692           374,414               772,330
Community & Regional Development (450):
  BA......................................................       13,258       13,476       13,749       14,058       14,378       14,723       15,070       15,434       15,798       16,177            68,919               146,121
  OT......................................................       21,916       19,603       17,220       15,408       14,290       13,480       12,655       12,530       12,846       13,480            88,437               153,428
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
 (500):
  BA......................................................       92,129       93,507       95,055       96,659       98,233      100,096      102,007      103,921      105,865      107,871           475,584               995,346
  OT......................................................       95,642       98,397       94,146       95,535       96,959       98,584      100,401      102,310      104,219      106,184           480,679               992,378
Health (550):
  BA......................................................       55,726       58,629       59,969       61,377       62,837       64,324       65,832       67,394       68,958       70,597           298,538               635,643
  OT......................................................       59,144       59,233       59,445       59,970       61,048       62,419       63,790       65,299       66,838       68,415           298,840               625,601
Medicare (570):
  BA......................................................        6,653        7,042        7,463        7,920        8,407        8,918        9,454       10,011       10,588       11,208            37,485                87,664
  OT......................................................        6,560        6,977        7,393        7,843        8,324        8,831        9,365        9,915       10,490       11,103            37,097                86,801
Income Security (600):
  BA......................................................       62,315       62,754       63,440       64,312       65,252       66,860       68,362       69,887       71,421       72,907           318,073               667,510
  OT......................................................       64,586       64,173       64,073       64,417       64,999       66,321       67,651       69,098       70,580       72,039           322,248               667,937
Social Security (650):
  On-Budget:
    BA....................................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0                 0                     0
    OT....................................................           75           38            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0               113                   113
  Off-Budget:
    BA....................................................        5,749        5,918        6,113        6,318        6,526        6,749        6,974        7,207        7,442        7,685            30,624                66,681
    OT....................................................        5,626        5,889        6,081        6,282        6,489        6,710        6,935        7,166        7,401        7,642            30,367                66,221
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
  BA......................................................       65,477       66,887       68,979       71,194       73,438       75,802       78,231       80,718       83,239       85,849           345,975               749,814
  OT......................................................       65,506       66,819       68,465       70,481       72,701       74,981       77,410       79,842       82,369       84,921           343,972               743,495
Administration of Justice (750):
  BA......................................................       52,129       53,684       55,467       57,354       59,283       61,296       63,360       65,470       67,614       69,834           277,918               605,492
  OT......................................................       52,841       54,113       55,562       57,303       59,002       60,797       62,858       64,953       67,084       69,287           278,821               603,800
General Government (800):
  BA......................................................       17,288       16,659       15,271       16,859       17,502       18,150       18,828       19,508       20,206       20,934            83,579               181,205
  OT......................................................       16,806       16,288       15,239       16,480       16,962       17,640       18,311       18,995       19,680       20,400            81,775               176,801
Allowances (920):
  BA......................................................      -30,278      -42,314      -46,179      -50,217      -52,514      -57,340      -60,801      -63,077      -65,162      -65,972          -221,502              -533,854
  OT......................................................      -16,956      -31,417      -39,648      -45,176      -49,368      -53,616      -57,293      -60,152      -62,497      -64,001          -182,565              -480,124
Government-Wide Savings (930):
  BA......................................................       25,936      -15,491      -29,865      -36,586      -43,720      -52,062      -58,930      -70,194      -82,038      -94,341           -99,726              -457,292
  OT......................................................       20,084       -3,041      -16,822      -26,073      -32,821      -41,111      -49,187      -59,012      -69,913      -81,635           -58,673              -359,532
OverseasContingencyOperations/GlobalWaronTerrorism(970):
  BA......................................................       85,357       29,946       29,946       29,946       29,946       29,946       29,946            0            0            0           205,141               265,033
  OT......................................................       52,580       37,823       32,585       30,893       31,032       29,647       29,647       11,200        4,402        1,827           184,912               261,634
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                     TABLE 3.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION MANDATORY SPENDING
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Fiscal year                             2015        2016         2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023         2024            2015-2019             2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA........................................................   2,490,974   2,603,918    2,736,788    2,876,142    3,067,399    3,263,213    3,414,041    3,625,603    3,756,823    3,870,186        13,775,221            31,705,088
  OT........................................................   2,477,799   2,547,743    2,672,288    2,807,952    2,998,048    3,183,090    3,349,359    3,563,128    3,687,807    3,807,385        13,503,830            31,094,600
On-budget:
  BA........................................................   1,749,253   1,818,321    1,900,516    1,985,256    2,119,189    2,250,705    2,332,554    2,470,813    2,524,720    2,552,087         9,572,535            21,703,413
  OT........................................................   1,739,978   1,766,946    1,841,016    1,922,666    2,055,838    2,176,782    2,274,372    2,415,138    2,462,804    2,496,686         9,326,444            21,152,225
Off-budget:
  BA........................................................     741,722     785,597      836,272      890,887      948,210    1,012,509    1,081,487    1,154,790    1,232,103    1,318,100         4,202,687            10,001,675
  OT........................................................     737,822     780,797      831,272      885,287      942,210    1,006,309    1,074,987    1,147,990    1,225,003    1,310,700         4,177,387             9,942,375
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
  BA........................................................       7,655       7,792        7,895        8,146        8,416        8,697        9,001        9,223        9,470       10,669            39,904                86,964
  OT........................................................       7,657       7,929        8,075        8,326        8,542        8,771        9,049        9,264        9,507       10,676            40,529                87,796
International Affairs (150):
  BA........................................................        -402        -125          -66          -19           17           59         -385         -130         -118         -110              -595                -1,279
  OT........................................................      -1,135      -1,353       -1,739       -1,848       -1,906       -1,896       -1,895       -1,694       -1,738       -1,785            -7,981               -16,989
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
  BA........................................................         100         100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100               500                 1,000
  OT........................................................          98         100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100               498                   998
Energy (270):
  BA........................................................       1,508       1,046         -784       -1,131       -1,172       -1,174       -3,109       -4,175       -5,142       -9,416              -533               -23,549
  OT........................................................       1,267         341       -1,558       -1,796       -1,747       -1,695       -3,492       -4,493       -5,412       -9,994            -3,493               -28,579
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
  BA........................................................       2,045       1,365          971       -2,116          625          826       -2,059         -703         -931       -1,492             2,890                -1,469
  OT........................................................       2,052       1,641        1,255       -2,031          694          715       -1,897         -684         -805       -1,391             3,611                  -451
Agriculture (350):
  BA........................................................      12,952      16,261       14,106       11,896       11,857       12,011       12,057       12,351       12,388       12,784            67,072               128,663
  OT........................................................      13,556      16,154       13,654       11,363       11,263       11,535       11,653       11,934       11,989       12,387            65,990               125,488
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................       9,950       8,642        4,515        3,857        3,923        4,387        4,784        4,132        3,838        3,697            30,887                51,725
    OT......................................................      -2,037      -5,710      -11,037      -12,846      -17,594      -17,619      -12,055      -14,158      -15,571      -16,855           -49,224              -125,482
  Off-budget
    BA......................................................      -1,340      -1,801       -1,774       -1,783       -1,792       -1,803       -1,867       -1,932       -1,998       -2,065            -8,490               -18,155
    OT......................................................      -1,340      -1,801       -1,774       -1,783       -1,792       -1,803       -1,867       -1,932       -1,998       -2,065            -8,490               -18,155
Transportation (400):
  BA........................................................       3,805      36,808       41,837       42,397       42,965       42,830       42,797       42,898       43,129       45,094           167,812               384,560
  OT........................................................       1,251       1,397        1,472        1,485        1,467        1,497        1,543        1,612        1,692        3,332             7,072                16,748
Community & Regional Development (450):
  BA........................................................       1,298       1,827        1,520        1,356        1,009          560          351          224          156          125             7,010                 8,426
  OT........................................................       1,692       1,822        2,072        2,432        2,551        2,528        2,024          878          644          430            10,569                17,073
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):
  BA........................................................     -18,221     -11,135       -8,356       -7,123      -12,955      -13,541      -14,258      -14,754      -15,204      -15,777           -57,790              -131,324
  OT........................................................      -3,883     -13,876       -7,009       -5,727      -10,885      -11,454      -11,998      -12,471      -12,859      -13,258           -41,380              -103,420
Health (550):
  BA........................................................     364,073     308,609      317,783      315,355      327,600      351,490      353,292      366,118      380,223      401,703         1,633,420             3,486,246
  OT........................................................     357,429     310,972      316,394      317,376      329,356      342,890      354,508      366,850      381,153      402,897         1,631,527             3,479,825
Medicare (570):
  BA........................................................     512,543     551,853      562,681      582,775      643,172      683,389      728,001      805,246      825,708      847,803         2,853,024             6,743,171
  OT........................................................     512,847     551,987      562,948      583,274      643,554      683,813      728,677      807,280      827,393      855,159         2,854,610             6,756,932
Income Security (600):
  BA........................................................     443,414     424,891      426,326      427,817      428,744      445,857      451,654      459,551      459,418      452,794         2,151,192             4,420,466
  OT........................................................     440,446     425,949      423,032      419,863      425,015      442,368      447,824      460,013      455,044      443,186         2,134,305             4,382,740
Social Security (650):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................      31,442      34,245       37,133       40,138       43,383       46,747       50,255       53,941       57,800       58,441           186,341               453,525
    OT......................................................      31,442      34,245       37,133       40,138       43,383       46,747       50,255       53,941       57,800       58,441           186,341               453,525
  Off-budget:
    BA......................................................     858,765     903,835      956,916    1,015,450    1,079,106    1,147,346    1,218,859    1,293,521    1,370,813    1,455,112         4,814,072            11,299,723
    OT......................................................     854,865     899,035      951,916    1,009,850    1,073,106    1,141,146    1,212,359    1,286,721    1,363,713    1,447,712         4,788,772            11,240,423
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
  BA........................................................      87,550      98,074       94,879       91,194      100,867      103,467      105,340      114,962      109,219      103,443           472,564             1,008,995
  OT........................................................      87,472      97,988       94,804       91,165      100,798      103,399      105,266      114,877      109,122      103,341           472,227             1,008,232
Administration of Justice (750):
  BA........................................................       1,882       3,248        1,303        1,051          956          850          903        1,497        1,417        1,332             8,440                14,439
  OT........................................................       1,409       2,185        2,757        1,792        1,499          852          876        1,458        1,371        1,281             9,642                15,480
General Government (800):
  BA........................................................       6,422       6,405        6,316        6,410        6,538        6,609        6,728        6,845        6,891        6,978            32,091                66,142
  OT........................................................       6,812       6,538        6,435        6,493        6,620        6,691        6,828        6,944        7,011        7,091            32,898                67,463
Net Interest (900):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................     365,987     416,238      482,228      553,820      611,852      659,310      693,159      723,805      751,215      770,124         2,430,125             6,027,737
    OT......................................................     365,987     416,238      482,228      553,820      611,852      659,310      693,159      723,805      751,215      770,124         2,430,125             6,027,737
  Off-budget:
    BA......................................................     -98,709     -98,858     -100,630     -103,830     -109,424     -112,610     -114,314     -114,823     -113,941     -111,363          -511,452            -1,078,504
    OT......................................................     -98,709     -98,858     -100,630     -103,830     -109,424     -112,610     -114,314     -114,823     -113,941     -111,363          -511,452            -1,078,504

Allowances (920):
  BA........................................................      -6,086      -5,511       -5,237       -4,349       -4,158       -4,485       -3,751       -3,794       -3,830            0           -25,341               -41,201
  OT........................................................      -5,720      -5,289       -5,366       -4,395       -4,174       -4,486       -3,747       -3,794       -3,825         -337           -24,944               -41,133
Government-Wide Savings (930):
  BA........................................................         -32       1,340         -660       -1,716       -2,726       -3,497       -4,130       -4,995       -5,296      -22,784            -3,794               -44,496
  OT........................................................         -32       1,340         -660       -1,716       -2,726       -3,497       -4,130       -4,995       -5,296      -14,718            -3,794               -36,430
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................     -78,632     -83,652      -83,974      -84,602      -91,824      -93,787      -98,176     -101,529     -105,731     -113,422          -422,684              -935,329
    OT......................................................     -78,632     -83,652      -83,974      -84,602      -91,824      -93,787      -98,176     -101,529     -105,731     -113,422          -422,684              -935,329
  Off-budget:
    BA......................................................     -16,994     -17,579      -18,240      -18,950      -19,680      -20,424      -21,191      -21,976      -22,771      -23,584           -91,443              -201,389
    OT......................................................     -16,994     -17,579      -18,240      -18,950      -19,680      -20,424      -21,191      -21,976      -22,771      -23,584           -91,443              -201,389
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          CBO AND OMB DIFFERENCES IN BASELINE BUDGET ESTIMATES

                              ----------                              


    When drafting the House budget resolution, the committee 
used CBO's February budget and economic forecast as its 
starting point. This estimate, also known as the baseline, is 
built to reflect the ten-year budget impact of all current laws 
that have been enacted before consideration of the budget 
resolution. All new policy changes assumed within the budget 
resolution are measured relative to CBO's baseline and, 
therefore, show how the budget would impact fiscal policy 
versus leaving current law unchanged.
    The President's budget is also built from and measured 
against a baseline that assumes current law as its starting 
point. However, the President's and CBO's estimate of the 
current-law baseline differ substantially, mainly because the 
President assumes future economic growth will be much stronger. 
This difference causes the President's baseline to show nearly 
$1.4 trillion of higher revenue than CBO does. There are also 
technical differences between the President and CBO on how fast 
spending grows in various programs. These differences amount to 
$258 billion in lower ten-year spending under CBO's forecast 
versus the President's estimate.
    It is very important to use the same baseline assumptions 
when comparing two budgets so that no bias is introduced into 
the analysis. OMB's projection of stronger economic growth 
allows it to show deficits that are likely to be much lower 
than if CBO's economic projections were used. Congress uses 
CBO's estimates in developing and considering budget proposals, 
including the President's budget. Normally, before the budget 
resolution is considered, the CBO re-estimates the President's 
budget and adjusts any baseline differences so that the House 
budget and the President's budget may be compared on an equal 
basis. However, the President submitted his budget a full month 
beyond the statutory deadline, and CBO was unable to complete 
its re-estimate before consideration of the budget resolution.
    In this report, the Committee has used Office of Management 
and Budget data to quantify the President's budget and CBO's 
data to quantify the House budget resolution. This leads to an 
``apples and oranges'' comparison of the two budgets. Table 4 
on the following page shows differences in CBO's and the 
President's current-law baseline. This difference provides an 
indication of the differences between the two budgets based 
solely on economic assumptions and estimating differences. 
Since CBO was unable to complete its analysis due to the late 
arrival of the President's budget in time for the Committee to 
meet its statutory deadline, Tables 5 and 6 show comparisons of 
the House budget resolution using CBO data and the President's 
budget using OMB data. The reader is advised to consider the 
baseline differences described in Table 4 when viewing Tables 5 
and 6.

                                                  TABLE 4.--CBO FEBRUARY 2014 BASELINE VS. OMB BEA BASELINE WITH JOINT COMMITTEE ENFORCEMENT\1\
                                                                                    [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2015        2016        2017        2018        2019        2020        2021        2022        2023        2024       2015-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending..................................................     -10,000       9,000       6,000      26,000      -3,000      -5,000     -10,000     -62,000     -93,000    -116,000      -258,000
Revenues..................................................      54,000      24,000     -25,000     -82,000    -133,000    -174,000    -224,000    -253,000    -275,000    -298,000    -1,386,000
Debt Held by the Public (end of year).....................    -280,000    -357,000    -380,000    -318,000    -226,000     -92,000      91,000     255,000     401,000     555,000          n.a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A negative sign reflects amounts in the CBO baseline that are below OMB's estimate; a positive sign reflects amounts in the CBO baseline that are above OMB's estimate.


                                                 TABLE 5.--SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION
                                                                [As a percentage of GDP]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Average
                                           2015      2016      2017      2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023      2024    2015-2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficit(+)/Surplus(-):
  Committee recommendation.............     +2.1%     +1.2%     +0.9%     +0.7%     +0.9%     +0.9%     +0.8%     +0.8%     +0.4%     -0.0%      +0.9%
  CBO..................................     +2.6%     +2.8%     +2.9%     +3.1%     +3.4%     +3.7%     +3.8%     +4.2%     +4.1%     +4.0%      +3.5%
  President's budget...................     +3.1%     +2.8%     +2.3%     +1.9%     +2.3%     +2.2%     +2.1%     +2.1%     +1.8%     +1.6%      +2.2%
Debt held by the public:
  Committee recommendation.............     73.0%     71.0%     69.0%     66.0%     64.0%     63.0%     61.0%     60.0%     58.0%     56.0%       n.a.
  CBO..................................     73.2%     72.6%     72.3%     72.6%     73.3%     74.2%     75.3%     76.8%     78.0%     79.2%       n.a.
  President's budget...................     74.6%     74.3%     73.5%     72.4%     72.0%     71.6%     71.1%     70.6%     69.9%     69.0%       n.a.
Outlays:
  Committee recommendation.............     20.2%     19.5%     18.9%     18.7%     18.8%     18.9%     18.9%     19.0%     18.7%     18.4%      19.0%
  CBO..................................     20.9%     21.1%     21.0%     21.1%     21.4%     21.7%     21.9%     22.3%     22.3%     22.4%      21.6%
  President's budget...................     21.4%     21.4%     21.1%     20.9%     21.3%     21.4%     21.5%     21.7%     21.6%     21.5%      21.4%
Revenues:
  Committee recommendation.............     18.3%     18.4%     18.2%     18.0%     17.9%     17.9%     17.9%     18.0%     18.1%     18.2%      18.1%
  CBO..................................     18.2%     18.2%     18.1%     18.0%     18.0%     18.0%     18.1%     18.1%     18.2%     18.4%      18.1%
  President's budget...................     18.3%     18.6%     18.9%     19.0%     19.0%     19.2%     19.4%     19.6%     19.8%     19.9%      19.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                 TABLE 6.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION VS. THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Fiscal year                         2015         2016         2017          2018          2019          2020          2021          2022          2023          2024             2015-2019             2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA..............................................    3,589,959    3,649,847     3,799,988     3,956,908     4,166,029     4,380,011     4,549,315     4,749,721     4,900,052     5,032,850        19,162,732            42,774,681
  OT..............................................    3,663,737    3,676,443     3,786,896     3,926,636     4,134,476     4,334,263     4,515,643     4,733,462     4,865,402     4,995,085        19,188,188            42,632,043
On-budget:
  BA..............................................    2,842,226    2,858,059     2,957,321     3,059,410     3,210,987     3,360,435     3,460,524     3,587,380     3,660,151     3,706,695        14,928,003            32,703,188
  OT..............................................    2,920,026    2,889,484     2,949,261     3,034,773     3,185,472     3,320,927     3,433,392     3,577,963     3,632,642     3,676,374        14,979,017            32,620,316
Off-budget:
  BA..............................................      747,734      791,788       842,668       897,499       955,042     1,019,576     1,088,791     1,162,341     1,239,901     1,326,155         4,234,730            10,071,493
  OT..............................................      743,711      786,959       837,636       891,863       949,004     1,013,336     1,082,251     1,155,499     1,232,759     1,318,711         4,209,172            10,011,727
Revenues:
  Total...........................................    3,304,911    3,481,127     3,631,022     3,770,315     3,932,192     4,103,643     4,288,242     4,490,237     4,702,070     4,926,144        18,119,567            40,629,903
  On-budget.......................................    2,533,841    2,676,038     2,789,423     2,890,308     3,014,685     3,148,637     3,294,650     3,456,346     3,626,518     3,807,452        13,904,295            31,237,899
  Off-budget......................................      771,070      805,088       841,599       880,008       917,507       955,006       993,591     1,033,890     1,075,552     1,118,691         4,215,272             9,392,004
Surplus/Deficit(-):
  Total...........................................     -379,826     -226,316      -179,875      -147,321      -198,284      -205,620      -191,401      -199,225      -104,332         5,059        -1,131,621            -1,827,140
  Macroeconomic fiscal impact.....................      -21,000      -31,000       -24,000         9,000         4,000        25,000        36,000        44,000        59,000        74,000           -63,000               175,000
  On-budget.......................................     -386,186     -213,446      -159,838      -144,466      -170,787      -172,290      -138,741      -121,617        -6,124       131,078        -1,074,722            -1,382,417
  Off-budget......................................       27,360       18,130         3,963       -11,855       -31,497       -58,329       -88,660      -121,608      -157,208      -200,019             6,100              -619,724
Debt held by the public (end of year).............   13,213,000   13,419,000    13,800,000    13,860,000    14,080,000    14,427,000    14,579,000    14,940,000    15,080,000    15,176,000              n.a.                  n.a.
Debt subject to limit (end of year)...............   18,304,357   18,627,533    19,172,590    19,411,553    19,773,917    20,227,349    20,449,374    20,822,448    20,981,807    21,089,365              n.a.                  n.a.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 PRESIDENT'S FY2015 BUDGET AS SUBMITTED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA..............................................    3,969,069    4,081,522     4,280,648     4,499,051     4,764,051     5,023,808     5,260,084     5,523,392     5,767,037     6,010,425        21,594,341            49,179,087
  OT..............................................    3,900,989    4,099,078     4,268,606     4,443,145     4,728,791     4,964,440     5,209,376     5,484,621     5,693,737     5,911,910        21,440,609            48,704,693
On-budget:
  BA..............................................    3,207,329    3,269,270     3,415,383     3,577,619     3,782,980     3,978,461     4,151,262     4,341,912     4,509,701     4,671,785        17,252,581            38,905,702
  OT..............................................    3,143,368    3,291,521     3,409,079     3,527,332     3,752,609     3,923,372     4,103,804     4,309,637     4,443,476     4,580,858        17,123,909            38,485,056
Off-budget:
  BA..............................................      761,740      812,252       865,265       921,432       981,071     1,045,347     1,108,822     1,181,480     1,257,336     1,338,640         4,341,760            10,273,385
  OT..............................................      757,621      807,557       859,527       915,813       976,182     1,041,068     1,105,572     1,174,984     1,250,261     1,331,052         4,316,700            10,219,637
Revenues:
  Total...........................................    3,337,425    3,567,952     3,810,779     4,029,856     4,226,119     4,452,278     4,705,729     4,954,286     5,212,085     5,478,190        18,972,131            43,774,699
  On-budget.......................................    2,579,425    2,756,952     2,960,779     3,131,856     3,281,119     3,465,278     3,663,729     3,860,286     4,069,085     4,283,190        14,710,131            34,051,699
  Off-budget......................................      758,000      811,000       850,000       898,000       945,000       987,000     1,042,000     1,094,000     1,143,000     1,195,000         4,262,000             9,723,000
Surplus/Deficit(-):
  Total...........................................     -563,564     -531,126      -457,827      -413,289      -502,672      -512,162      -503,647      -530,335      -481,652      -433,720        -2,468,478            -4,929,994
  On-budget.......................................     -563,943     -534,569      -448,300      -395,476      -471,490      -458,094      -440,075      -449,351      -374,391      -297,668        -2,413,778            -4,433,357
  Off-budget......................................          379        3,443        -9,527       -17,813       -31,182       -54,068       -63,572       -80,984      -107,261      -136,052           -54,700              -496,637
Debt held by the public (end of year).............   13,591,802   14,256,587    14,843,459    15,370,490    15,981,956    16,602,649    17,213,324    17,849,633    18,440,724    18,986,039              n.a.                  n.a.
Debt subject to limit (end of year)...............   18,686,049   19,486,596    20,239,159    20,940,631    21,652,866    22,361,537    23,052,216    23,737,820    24,380,608    24,980,565              n.a.                  n.a.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               DIFFERENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Spending:
  BA..............................................     -379,110     -431,675      -480,660      -542,143      -598,022      -643,797      -710,769      -773,671      -866,985      -977,575        -2,431,609            -6,404,406
  OT..............................................     -237,252     -422,635      -481,710      -516,509      -594,315      -630,177      -693,733      -751,159      -828,335      -916,825        -2,252,421            -6,072,650
On-budget:
  BA..............................................     -365,103     -411,211      -458,062      -518,209      -571,993      -618,026      -690,738      -754,532      -849,550      -965,090        -2,324,578            -6,202,514
  OT..............................................     -223,342     -402,037      -459,818      -492,559      -567,137      -602,445      -670,412      -731,674      -810,834      -904,484        -2,144,892            -5,864,740
Off-budget:
  BA..............................................      -14,006      -20,464       -22,597       -23,933       -26,029       -25,771       -20,031       -19,139       -17,435       -12,485          -107,030              -201,892
  OT..............................................      -13,910      -20,598       -21,891       -23,950       -27,178       -27,732       -23,321       -19,485       -17,502       -12,341          -107,528              -207,910
Revenues:
  Total...........................................      -32,514      -86,825      -179,757      -259,541      -293,927      -348,635      -417,487      -464,049      -510,015      -552,046          -852,564            -3,144,796
  On-budget.......................................      -45,584      -80,914      -171,356      -241,548      -266,434      -316,641      -369,079      -403,940      -442,567      -475,738          -805,836            -2,813,800
  Off-budget......................................       13,070       -5,912        -8,401       -17,992       -27,493       -31,994       -48,409       -60,110       -67,448       -76,309           -46,728              -330,996
Surplus/Deficit(-):
  Total...........................................     -183,738     -304,810      -277,952      -265,968      -304,388      -306,542      -312,246      -331,110      -377,320      -438,779        -1,336,857            -3,102,854
  On-budget.......................................     -177,757     -321,123      -288,462      -251,010      -300,703      -285,804      -301,334      -327,734      -368,267      -428,746        -1,339,056            -3,050,940
  Off-budget......................................      -26,981      -14,687       -13,490        -5,958           315         4,261        25,088        40,624        49,947        63,967           -60,800               123,087
Debt held by the public (end of year).............     -378,802     -837,587    -1,043,459    -1,510,490    -1,901,956    -2,175,649    -2,634,324    -2,909,633    -3,360,724    -3,810,039              n.a.                  n.a.
Debt subject to limit (end of year)...............     -381,692     -859,063    -1,066,569    -1,529,078    -1,878,949    -2,134,188    -2,602,842    -2,915,372    -3,398,801    -3,891,200              n.a.                  n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS
                        OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

                              ----------                              


                     The Current Economic Situation

    Real gross domestic product grew by 1.9 percent (measured 
on a year-over-year basis) in 2013. That represented a slowdown 
from the 2.8 percent growth posted in 2012. Looking at the 
trend over the past four years, real GDP growth has averaged 
just over 2 percent annually, well below the 3 percent 
historical trend rate of growth in the U.S.
    Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 175,000 in the 
latest month (February 2014), roughly on par with the average 
monthly increase over the past year. The unemployment rate 
stands at 6.7 percent. That represents a significant decline 
from a peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009-2010. However, a 
significant chunk of this decline has been artificial because 
it has been due to people leaving the labor force (and 
therefore no longer being counted as ``unemployed'') and not 
from a surge in employment. The slow decline in the 
unemployment rate in recent years has occurred alongside a 
steep decline in the economy's labor-force participation rate. 
The participation rate stands at 63.0 percent, close to the 
lowest level since 1978.
    This low labor-force-participation rate means that over 90 
million Americans are now ``on the sidelines'' and not in the 
labor force, representing a 10 million increase since early 
2009. The retirement of the baby-boom generation was expected 
to lead to lower labor-force-participation rates. However, 
since 2000, the labor-force-participation rate for those 55 and 
older has increased and the participation rate for younger 
works (those between 16 and 54) has declined.\20\ Of the 10.5 
million people who are currently counted as unemployed, 3.8 
million, or 37 percent, have been unemployed for over 6 months. 
Prior to the recession, only about 18 percent of the unemployed 
were out of work for that long. The long-term unemployment 
problem has been rightfully flagged by economists as a major 
issue. Long-term unemployment not only leads to skill erosion 
at the personal level and a general detachment from job 
opportunities, it also undermines the long-term productive 
capacity of the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Furchtgott-Roth, Diane, ``Who Is Dropping Out of the Labor 
Force, and Why?'' Real Clear Markets, 14 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inflation remains low. The Federal Reserve's preferred 
inflation gauge, the core price index for personal consumption 
expenditures (core PCE), rose just over 1 percent last year, 
well below the Federal Open Market Committee's 2 percent 
objective for inflation over the longer run. Some of the recent 
softness in headline inflation reflects factors that will 
probably prove transitory, like falling prices for crude oil 
and declines in non-oil import prices.
    The Federal Reserve has begun to taper the level of its 
monthly bond purchases recently and is expected to fully wrap 
up its large-scale asset-purchase program by the end of this 
year. However, the Fed is expected to keep the federal funds 
rate near zero long after it finishes its bond-purchase 
program. Most economists expect the Fed will be in a position 
to finally raise the federal funds rate in the latter part of 
2015, depending on economic developments.
    The yield on the ten-year Treasury has been hovering around 
2.75 percent of late. That is up from levels just under 2 
percent last spring.
    With unemployment still elevated, and quality job 
opportunities relatively few in number, wage growth remains 
subpar. The inflation-adjusted 12-month increase in hourly 
earnings has been just over 1 percent recently. The weak labor 
market and subpar wage growth is a prime reason why overall 
household income is still depressed. Real median household 
income declined for the fifth consecutive year in 2012 (latest 
data available) and, at just over $51,000, is currently at its 
lowest level since 1995.
    Emerging markets contributed to some volatility in global 
financial markets earlier this year, highlighted by steep drops 
in the currencies of countries like Argentina, Turkey, Brazil, 
and South Africa. U.S. markets have been somewhat immune to 
this volatility. The S&P 500 experienced some weakness in 
January, but has subsequently recovered and is currently about 
20 percent above its year-earlier level.

                          The Economic Outlook

    The administration's economic forecast is more optimistic 
than both CBO and the Blue Chip consensus of private-sector 
forecasters. The administration expects real GDP to grow by 3.1 
percent this year, rising to 3.4 percent in 2015 and 3.3 
percent in 2016. The CBO expects real GDP to grow by 2.7 
percent in 2014, 3.3 percent in 2015, and 3.4 percent in 2016. 
The Blue Chip consensus expects real GDP of 2.7 percent in 
2014, 3.0 percent in 2015, and 2.9 percent in 2016. Over the 
ten-year budget window, OMB expects real GDP growth to average 
2.7 percent, higher than CBO's forecast of a 2.5 percent growth 
average and Blue Chip's 2.6 percent growth average.
    Similar to other forecasts, the administration expects the 
unemployment rate to decline gradually in the coming years. 
According to OMB, the unemployment rate will average 6.4 
percent in 2015, declining to 6.0 percent in 2016, and 5.6 
percent in 2017. The administration sees the longer-term 
unemployment rate leveling off at about 5.4 percent. (By 
comparison, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in 2007, the 
year before the financial crisis.) That path is somewhat better 
than the CBO forecast. CBO expects the unemployment rate to 
average 6.5 percent in 2015, declining to 6.1 percent in 2016 
and 5.9 percent in 2017, and then leveling off at 5.6/5.5 
percent later in the decade. The Blue Chip consensus sees a 
more rapid decline in the unemployment rate than either CBO or 
OMB. According to Blue Chip, the unemployment rate will decline 
to 5.9 percent in 2015 and reach 5.3 percent by 2018.
    The administration expects inflation to grow from its 
current low level of about 1.5 percent to above 2.0 percent in 
the next few years. Later in the decade, OMB expects the 
consumer price index (CPI) to grow at about 2.3 percent 
annually. CBO and Blue Chip expect a similar path for price 
inflation.
    OMB expects that interest rates will rise to more normal 
levels in the coming years. The ten-year Treasury note, which 
is currently at about 2.7 percent, will rise to about 3.5 
percent in 2015 and 4.0 percent in 2016. It is expected to hit 
5.0 percent in 2021. CBO expects interest rates to rise to that 
level sooner. CBO sees the ten-year Treasury hitting 5.0 
percent in 2018 and then flatlining at that level in the 
subsequent years. The Blue Chip consensus sees a more gradual 
increase in interest rates, with the ten-year Treasury note 
reaching 4.8 percent in 2021 and flatlining at that level in 
subsequent years.

Economic Forecasts and the Macroeconomic Feedback Effect of Pro-Growth 
                            Budget Policies

    Economic growth is one of the major determinants of revenue 
and spending levels--and therefore the size of budget 
deficits--over a given period. According to CBO, if real GDP 
growth is just 0.1 percentage point lower than expected over 
its ten-year budget window, revenue would be $272 billion 
lower, spending would be nearly $40 billion higher, and the 
cumulative deficit would rise by $311 billion. We have seen the 
budget impact of sluggish economic growth in recent years. 
Although the U.S. economy technically emerged from recession 
nearly five years ago, the subsequent recovery has been subpar. 
Over the past four years, real GDP growth has averaged just 
over 2 percent annually. According to CBO, U.S. economic output 
has been growing at less than half of the typical rate 
exhibited during other recoveries since WWII.
    This trend has surprised most economic forecasters. Back in 
2010, CBO expected real GDP to grow by a relatively brisk 3.0 
percent annual average over the budget window. Last year, that 
average edged down to 2.9 percent, but in its latest economic 
forecast, average real GDP growth fell to just 2.5 percent. The 
important change is that this year CBO has significantly 
lowered its expectation of long-term growth in potential real 
GDP, due mainly to negative developments in the labor market. 
CBO expects slower growth in the potential labor force later 
this decade, which is linked to the aging of the population and 
the retirement of the baby-boom generation. With a smaller 
labor force, there will also be less business investment and 
slower growth in the country's capital stock. Government 
policies will also play a role in this trend. For instance, the 
Affordable Care Act (ACA) will incentivize people to work fewer 
hours. The overall picture that CBO's latest economic forecast 
paints is that sluggish economic growth has evolved from mainly 
a cyclical issue to a longer-term structural problem.
    The clear downward trend in the economic forecast in recent 
years has raised the hurdle significantly for those trying to 
correct the fiscal imbalance over the next decade. CBO's 
downgrade in its economic forecast from last year to this year 
has lowered expected revenues by $1.4 trillion over the next 
decade and has increased projected deficits by a cumulative 
$1.0 trillion over this period. This is important because CBO's 
annual economic assumptions have typically been adopted for use 
in the budget resolution.
    In contrast, the administration's budget is developed 
according to its own economic forecast. OMB's latest economic 
forecast is more optimistic than that of CBO. OMB expects real 
GDP growth to average 2.7 percent annually over the next 10 
years, higher than CBO's estimate of 2.5 percent. This 
difference is in part attributable to the fact that the 
administration's economic forecast assumes the implementation 
of the President's policies, which the administration believes 
will lead to greater economic growth than the base case.
    The budget resolution contains policies that would have a 
positive impact on economic growth and therefore on the budget. 
CBO has written extensively on the risks of deficits and debt 
to the economy and that the reduction in projected deficits and 
the debt would benefit the economy. Other policies that are 
likely to boost economic growth include both fundamental tax 
reform and increasing domestic energy production.
    In a report published in February of 2013, CBO concluded 
that reducing budget deficits, thereby bending the curve on 
debt levels, would be a net positive for economic growth.\21\ 
According to that analysis, a large deficit-reduction package 
of $4 trillion, which this budget resolution actually exceeds, 
would increase real economic output by 1.7 percent in 2023. 
Their analysis concludes that deficit reduction creates long-
term economic benefits because it increases the pool of 
national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising 
economic growth and job creation. The greater economic output 
that stems from a large deficit-reduction package would have a 
sizeable impact on the federal budget. For instance, higher 
output would lead to greater revenues through the increase in 
taxable incomes. Lower interest rates and a reduction in the 
stock of debt would lead to lower government spending on net 
interest expenses. CBO finds that this dynamic would reduce 
budget deficits by a net $186 billion over ten years, including 
$82 billion in the tenth year alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\``Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since that analysis, CBO has updated its economic forecast 
and its baseline budget projections. CBO has conducted an 
economic analysis of the effects of the deficit reduction 
called for under this budget resolution relative to their new 
budget and economic outlook. The budget resolution incorporates 
these macroeconomic feedback effects into the budget figures, 
recognizing the fact that turning the economy around is a key 
element of shoring up the budget.
    Even after incorporating this positive macroeconomic 
feedback into CBO's base-case forecast, GDP levels in the 
budget resolution are still below the levels assumed in the 
administration's economic forecast.

 Background on CBO's Estimates of the Positive Macroeconomic Feedback 
                      Effects of Deficit Reduction

    The Congressional Budget Office has estimated several times 
over nearly 20 years that congressional action to reduce 
deficits will ultimately result in lower interest rates and 
faster economic growth by freeing up savings for use in 
productive investment. In addition, CBO has estimated that the 
positive economic effects of deficit reduction will feed back 
into the budget and further reduce deficits and debt over the 
medium and longer term.
    In early 1995, CBO's current-law baseline forecasted rising 
deficits and debt through the end of the decade, and there was 
growing interest in efforts to reduce the deficit. In 1995 and 
1996, CBO published several estimates of the positive economic 
and budgetary effects of illustrative policy changes necessary 
to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. CBO estimated that a 
seven-year illustrative path of policy changes necessary to 
balance the budget would lower interest rates, increase 
economic growth, and, as a result, further reduce deficits--and 
the amount of savings from policy changes needed to balance the 
budget.\22,23,24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\``Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1996-2000,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, Jan. 1995, pp. xix-xx.
    \23\``An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal 
Year 1996,'' Congressional Budget Office, Apr. 1995, pp. 51-58.
    \24\``Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1997-2006,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, May 1996, pp. 18-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its January 1997 baseline report, CBO estimated that if 
a credible plan to balance the budget by 2002 was enacted, the 
level of gross domestic product would increase and interest 
rates would decline by 70 basis points by 2000. CBO estimated 
that a five-year deficit-reduction plan comprised of $423 
billion in savings and debt service from illustrative policy 
changes and a $77 billion fiscal dividend would result in a 
balanced budget by 2002. The size of the fiscal dividend in 
2002 was estimated to be $34 billion, or 0.3 percent of 
GDP.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\``Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1998-2007,'' 
Congressional Budget Office, January 1997, pp. 59-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1997, President Clinton reached an agreement with a 
Republican-led Congress to balance the budget, which was 
incorporated into the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 
budget resolution and enacted into law by subsequent 
reconciliation legislation. This bipartisan balanced-budget 
agreement incorporated CBO's estimate of the economic feedback 
from deficit reduction, what was then called the ``fiscal 
dividend.''\26\ Based on CBO estimates of the combination of 
the policies and the economic feedback, the budget resolution 
projected a balanced budget by 2002. As it turned out, a 
unified budget surplus of $69 billion was achieved in fiscal 
year 1998, four years earlier than CBO projected.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\``Conference Report to Accompany H. Con. Res. 84, the Fiscal 
Year 1998 Budget Resolution,'' House Report 105-116, p. 60.
    \27\``The Economic and Budget Outlook, An Update,'' Congressional 
Budget Office, September 1997, pages ix-x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an updated economic-feedback analysis of the fiscal path 
in this budget resolution, CBO now estimates that the fiscal 
year 2015 House Republican budget, which provides ten-year 
savings of $5.135 trillion from policy changes and debt service 
compared to current policy, would result in positive economic 
feedback effects that would further lower the deficit by 
approximately $175 billion. The dividend in 2024 would be $74 
billion, or 0.3 percent of GDP.\28\ Adjusting for differences 
in the magnitude of deficit reduction, the CBO-estimated 
positive fiscal dividend from the fiscal year 2015 House 
Republican budget is more modest in size than the estimate that 
the agency made in 1997 and that was subsequently incorporated 
into the bipartisan fiscal year 1998 budget resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\``Budgetary and Economic Outcomes Under Paths for Federal 
Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan, April 
2014,'' Congressional Budget Office, April 1, 2014.

                                      TABLE 7.--ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS: ADMINISTRATION, CBO, AND PRIVATE FORECASTERS
                                                                    [Calendar years]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Year to Year, Percent Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real GDP:
    Administration......................................
    Budget..............................................    1.7     3.1     3.4     3.3     3.2     2.8     2.5     2.4     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    1.7     2.7     3.3     3.4     3.0     2.4     2.3     2.2     2.2     2.1     2.1     2.0
    Blue Chip (March 2014)..............................    1.9     2.7     3.0     2.9     2.8     2.6     2.5     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4
Consumer Price Index:
    Administration Budget...............................    1.4     1.6     2.0     2.1     2.2     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    1.5     1.7     2.0     2.1     2.2     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4
    Blue Chip (March 2014)..............................    1.5     1.7     2.0     2.2     2.3     2.4     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual Average, Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rate:
    Administration Budget...............................    7.5     6.9     6.4     6.0     5.6     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    7.4     6.8     6.5     6.1     5.9     5.8     5.7     5.7     5.6     5.6     5.5     5.5
    Blue Chip (March 2014)..............................    7.4     6.4     5.9     5.6     5.4     5.3     5.3     5.3     5.3     5.3     5.3     5.3
3-Month Treasury Bill:
    Administration Budget...............................    0.1     0.1     0.3     1.2     2.3     3.2     3.6     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    0.1     0.2     0.4     1.8     3.3     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7
    Blue Chip (March 2014)..............................    0.1     0.1     0.5     1.9     2.9     3.3     3.5     3.5     3.6     3.6     3.6     3.6
10-Year Treasury Note:
    Administration Budget...............................    2.3     3.0     3.5     4.0     4.3     4.6     4.7     4.9     5.0     5.1     5.1     5.1
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    2.4     3.1     3.7     4.3     4.8     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0
    Blue Chip (March 2014)..............................    2.4     3.1     3.7     4.1     4.5     4.6     4.8     4.7     4.8     4.8     4.8     4.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget, and Blue Chip Economic Indicators.


                                        TABLE 8.--ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION*
                                                                    [Calendar years]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Year to Year, Percent Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real GDP:
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    1.7     2.7     3.3     3.4     3.0     2.4     2.3     2.2     2.2     2.1     2.1     2.0
Consumer Price Index:
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    1.5     1.7     2.0     2.1     2.2     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual Average, Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rate:
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    7.4     6.8     6.5     6.1     5.9     5.8     5.7     5.7     5.6     5.6     5.5     5.5
3-Month Treasury Bill:
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    0.1     0.2     0.4     1.8     3.3     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7     3.7
10-Year Treasury Note:
    CBO (Feb. 2014).....................................    2.4     3.1     3.7     4.3     4.8     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0     5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*CBO's base case economic forecast without incorporating the positive macroeconomic feedback effect from lower budget deficits.


                 TABLE 9.--ESTIMATES OF TOTAL INCOME TAX EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2013-2019
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Total from corporations and individuals
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019     2015-19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense:
    1 Exclusion of benefits and    11,620    12,620    13,230    12,200    12,310    12,730    13,240     63,710
   allowances to armed forces
   personnel...................
International affairs:
    2 Exclusion of income           4,410     4,310     4,350     4,470     4,730     4,990     5,200     23,740
   earned abroad by U.S.
   citizens....................
    3 Exclusion of certain          1,100     1,160     1,220     1,280     1,340     1,410     1,480      6,730
   allowances for Federal
   employees abroad............
    4 Inventory property sales      3,320     3,600     3,890     4,220     4,560     4,940     5,352     22,962
   source rules exception......
    5 Deferral of income from      63,440    72,740    75,540    76,380    76,260    73,970    71,060    373,210
   controlled foreign
   corporations (normal tax
   method).....................
    6 Deferred taxes for            6,660     2,700         0         0         0         0         0          0
   financial firms on certain
   income earned overseas......
General science, space, and
 technology:
    7 Expensing of research and     5,840     5,160     4,800     5,450     6,230     6,930     7,270     30,680
   experimentation expenditures
   (normal tax method).........
    8 Credit for increasing         8,430     5,420     3,170     2,860     2,570     2,300     2,030     12,930
   research activities.........
Energy:
    9 Expensing of exploration        550       510       510       590       600       550       520      2,770
   and development costs, fuels
   10 Excess of percentage over       530       670       780       920     1,070     1,230     1,390      5,390
   cost depletion, fuels.......
   11 Alternative fuel                 10         0         0         0         0         0         0          0
   production credit...........
   12 Exception from passive           20        20        20        20        20        20        20        100
   loss limitation for working
   interests in oil and gas
   properties..................
   13 Capital gains treatment          90        80        90       110       120       120       130        570
   of royalties on coal........
   14 Exclusion of interest on         20        30        30        30        30        30        30        150
   energy facility bonds.......
   15 Energy production             1,670     2,370     3,000     3,330     3,370     3,210     3,130     16,040
   credit\1\...................
   16 Energy investment             1,950     1,840     1,470     1,380       850       220       -20      3,900
   credit\1\...................
   17 Alcohol fuel credits\2\..        40        10        10         0         0         0         0         10
   18 Bio-Diesel and small agri-       20        20         0         0         0         0         0          0
   biodiesel producer tax
   credits\3\..................
   19 Tax credits for clean-          270       440       670       680       650       400       150      2,550
   fuel burning vehicles.......
   20 Exclusion of utility            340       340       340       340       320       320       320      1,640
   conservation subsidies......
   21 Credit for holding clean         70        70        70        70        70        70        70        350
   renewable energy bonds\4\...
   22 Deferral of gain from             0       -60      -220      -220      -200      -170      -140       -950
   dispositions of transmission
   property to implement FERC
   restructuring policy........
   23 Credit for investment in        180       200       140        40        20       -10       -10        180
   clean coal facilities.......
   24 Temporary 50% expensing         600      -100      -700      -830      -870      -800      -660     -3,860
   for equipment used in the
   refining of liquid fuels....
   25 Natural gas distribution        100       100       100       110       110       120       120        560
   pipelines treated as 15-year
   property....................
   26 Amortize all geological         100       110       130       130       120       100       100        580
   and geophysical expenditures
   over 2 years................
   27 Allowance of deduction           70        40        20         0         0       -20       -20        -20
   for certain energy efficient
   commercial building property
   28 Credit for construction         150       120        60        20         0         0         0         80
   of new energy efficient
   homes.......................
   29 Credit for energy               610         0         0         0         0         0         0          0
   efficiency improvements to
   existing homes..............
   30 Credit for energy               150       130       120       100         0         0         0        220
   efficient appliances........
   31 Credit for residential          960     1,060     1,170     1,300       540         0         0      3,010
   energy efficient property...
   32 Qualified energy                 20        30        30        30        30        30        30        150
   conservation bonds\5\.......
   33 Advanced energy property        210       110        90         0         0       -10       -10         70
   credit......................
   34 Advanced nuclear power            0         0         0         0       210       470       590      1,270
   production credit...........
Natural resources and
 environment:
   35 Expensing of exploration         50        50        50        60        60        60        60        290
   and development costs,
   nonfuel minerals............
   36 Excess of percentage over       580       590       590       600       610       620       640      3,060
   cost depletion, nonfuel
   minerals....................
   37 Exclusion of interest on        450       490       560       630       690       730       790      3,400
   bonds for water, sewage, and
   hazardous waste facilities..
   38 Capital gains treatment          90        80        90       110       120       120       130        570
   of certain timber income....
   39 Expensing of multiperiod        280       300       300       320       330       340       360      1,650
   timber growing costs........
   40 Tax incentives for              570       580       600       610       620       630       640      3,100
   preservation of historic
   structures..................
   41 Industrial CO2 capture           80        80        80       130       250       120         0        580
   and sequestration tax credit
   42 Deduction for endangered         20        20        20        30        30        30        30        140
   species recovery
   expenditures................
Agriculture:
   43 Expensing of certain             90       100       100       110       110       120       120        560
   capital outlays.............
   44 Expensing of certain            140       140       140       140       150       150       160        740
   multiperiod production costs
   45 Treatment of loans               40        40        40        40        40        40        40        200
   forgiven for solvent farmers
   46 Capital gains treatment         920       800       920     1,060     1,160     1,230     1,280      5,650
   of certain income...........
   47 Income averaging for            130       130       130       140       140       140       140        690
   farmers.....................
   48 Deferral of gain on sale         20        20        20        20        20        20        20        100
   of farm refiners............
   49 Expensing of                     70        70        70        80        80        90       100        420
   reforestation expenditures..
Commerce and housing:
  Financial institutions and
   insurance:
   50 Exemption of credit union     2,000     2,070     1,970     2,370     2,700     2,770     3,000     12,810
   income......................
   51 Exclusion of interest on     18,930    21,270    23,040    24,690    26,370    28,180    30,090    132,370
   life insurance savings......
   52 Special alternative tax          10        10        10        10        20        20        20         80
   on small property and
   casualty insurance companies
   53 Tax exemption of certain        600       660       690       730       760       790       830      3,800
   insurance companies owned by
   tax-exempt organizations....
   54 Small life insurance             30        30        40        40        40        40        40        200
   company deduction...........
   55 Exclusion of interest           210     1,260     1,840     1,940     2,030     2,130     2,230     10,170
   spread of financial
   institutions................
  Housing:
   56 Exclusion of interest on      1,230     1,360     1,510     1,700     1,880     2,000     2,140      9,230
   owner-occupied mortgage
   subsidy bonds...............
   57 Exclusion of interest on      1,000     1,090     1,230     1,390     1,520     1,640     1,750      7,530
   rental housing bonds........
   58 Deductibility of mortgage    69,020    70,370    73,910    79,830    89,150   100,600   112,840    456,330
   interest on owner-occupied
   homes.......................
   59 Deductibility of State       29,290    31,740    33,880    36,570    39,600    42,730    45,770    198,550
   and local property tax on
   owner-occupied homes........
   60 Deferral of income from       1,140     1,330     1,470     1,630     1,760     1,860     1,950      8,670
   installment sales...........
   61 Capital gains exclusion      34,270    52,250    56,510    61,110    66,090    71,480    77,300    332,490
   on home sales...............
   62 Exclusion of net imputed     72,440    76,220    79,810    83,470    87,900    92,570    97,488    441,238
   rental income...............
   63 Exception from passive        8,660     9,820    10,360    10,910    11,550    12,240    12,810     57,870
   loss rules for $25,000 of
   rental loss.................
   64 Credit for low-income         7,410     8,310     8,280     8,330     8,730     9,080     9,420     43,840
   housing investments.........
   65 Accelerated depreciation      1,780     2,090     2,500     3,020     3,560     4,130     4,710     17,920
   on rental housing (normal
   tax method).................
   66 Discharge of mortgage         3,360       870         0         0         0         0         0          0
   indebtedness................
  Commerce:
   67 Discharge of business             0       -60       -80       -80       -60       -20        20       -220
   indebtedness................
   68 Exceptions from imputed          20        30        40        40        50        50        60        240
   interest rules..............
   69 Treatment of qualified       23,650    23,840    26,650    28,580    30,040    31,290    32,390    148,950
   dividends...................
   70 Capital gains (except        68,860    60,030    68,850    79,300    86,950    91,550    95,620    422,270
   agriculture, timber, iron
   ore, and coal)..............
   71 Capital gains exclusion         140       340       480       640       850     1,000     1,010      3,980
   of small corporation stock..
   72 Step-up basis of capital     23,050    30,780    32,370    34,010    35,750    37,600    39,580    179,310
   gains at death..............
   73 Carryover basis of            2,870     2,290     2,560     2,810     3,060     3,260     3,400     15,090
   capital gains on gifts......
   74 Ordinary income treatment        60        60        60        60        60        60        60        300
   of loss from small business
   corporation stock sale......
   75 Accelerated depreciation     -7,650    -7,570    -7,540    -7,690    -7,970    -8,350    -8,990    -40,540
   of buildings other than
   rental housing (normal tax
   method).....................
   76 Accelerated depreciation     48,460    15,300    15,470    35,640    52,860    69,300    84,420    257,690
   of machinery and equipment
   (normal tax method).........
   77 Expensing of certain          3,950    -1,180    -2,040      -570       380     1,080     1,570        420
   small investments (normal
   tax method).................
   78 Graduated corporation         4,300     4,200     4,130     4,100     4,220     4,200     4,370     21,020
   income tax rate (normal tax
   method).....................
   79 Exclusion of interest on        170       190       210       230       250       280       290      1,260
   small issue bonds...........
   80 Deduction for US             12,860    13,790    14,480    15,200    15,840    16,820    16,150     78,490
   production activities.......
   81 Special rules for certain       290       207       120        80        40        10         0        250
   film and TV production......
Transportation:
   82 Tonnage tax..............        60        70        70        70        80        80        90        520
   83 Deferral of tax on               20        20        20        20        20        20        20        100
   shipping companies..........
   84 Exclusion of reimbursed       2,580     2,670     2,780     2,900     3,010     3,110     3,220     15,020
   employee parking expenses...
   85 Exclusion for employer-         710       710       710       770       810       860       920      4,070
   provided transit passes.....
   86 Tax credit for certain          120        60         0         0         0         0         0          0
   expenditures for maintaining
   railroad tracks.............
   87 Exclusion of interest on        240       230       220       210       200       190       170        990
   bonds for Highway Projects
   and rail-truck transfer
   facilities..................
Community and regional
 development:
   88 Investment credit for            30        30        30        30        30        30        30        150
   rehabilitation of structures
   (other than historic).......
   89 Exclusion of interest for       740       820       920     1,030     1,130     1,210     1,300      5,590
   airport, dock, and similar
   bonds.......................
   90 Exemption of certain            110       120       120       120       130       130       130        630
   mutuals' and cooperatives'
   income......................
   91 Empowerment zones, the DC       450       350       200       190       190       180       150        910
   enterprise zone, and renewal
   communities.................
   92 New markets tax credit...       950     1,010     1,040     1,050       960       750       560      4,360
   93 Expensing of                   -180      -180      -170      -160      -160      -160      -160       -810
   environmental remediation
   costs.......................
   94 Credit to holders of Gulf       220       240       280       310       340       360       390      1,680
   Tax Credit Bonds............
   95 Recovery Zone Bonds\6\...       120       130       150       160       180       190       210        890
   96 Tribal Economic                  20        40        40        60        60        60        60        280
   Development Bonds...........
Education, training,
 employment, and social
 services:
  Education:
   97 Exclusion of scholarship      2,890     2,980     3,090     3,200     3,310     3,420     3,550     16,570
   and fellowship income
   (normal tax method).........
   98 HOPE tax credit..........         0         0         0         0         0       720     7,230      7,950
   99 Lifetime Learning tax         1,810     1,680     1,720     1,740     1,740     1,880     3,100     10,180
   credit......................
  100 American Opportunity Tax     12,540    15,530    15,240    15,310    15,370    13,760         0     59,680
   Credit\7\...................
  101 Education Individual             70        80       100       110       120       130       150        610
   Retirement Accounts.........
  102 Deductibility of student-     1,720     1,720     1,780     1,780     1,790     1,790     1,840      8,980
   loan interest...............
  103 Deduction for higher            600       560         0         0         0         0         0          0
   education expenses..........
  104 Qualified tuition             1,680     1,770     1,900     2,050     2,200     2,350     2,520     11,020
   programs....................
  105 Exclusion of interest on        510       560       620       700       760       820       880      3,780
   student-loan bonds..........
  106 Exclusion of interest on      2,240     2,480     2,760     3,120     3,430     3,660     3,930     16,900
   bonds for private nonprofit
   educational facilities......
  107 Credit for holders of           200       180       160       130       120       110       100        620
   zone academy bonds\8\.......
  108 Exclusion of interest on         10        10        10        20        20        20        20         90
   savings bonds redeemed to
   finance educational expenses
  109 Parental personal             5,200     5,320     5,400     5,490     5,570     5,660     5,760     27,880
   exemption for students age
   19 or over..................
  110 Deductibility of              4,550     5,040     5,370     5,810     6,290     6,780     7,290     31,540
   charitable contributions
   (education).................
  111 Exclusion of employer-          710       750       800       850       900       950     1,000      4,500
   provided educational
   assistance..................
  112 Special deduction for           190       170         0         0         0         0         0          0
   teacher expenses............
  113 Discharge of student loan        90        90        90        90       100       100       100        480
   indebtedness................
  114 Qualified school                580       650       650       650       650       650       650      3,250
   construction bonds\9\.......
  Training, employment, and
   social services:
  115 Work opportunity tax            900       880       460       250       200       170       130      1,210
   credit......................
  116 Employer provided child         880       920       970     1,040     1,110     1,170     1,240      5,530
   care exclusion..............
  117 Employer-provided child          10        10        10        10        10        10        10         50
   care credit.................
  118 Assistance for adopted          530       530       560       590       620       660       700      3,130
   foster children.............
  119 Adoption credit and             450       540       580       600       640       730       660      3,210
   exclusion\10\...............
  120 Exclusion of employee         2,185     3,700     3,797     3,910     4,032     4,155     4,278     20,172
   meals and lodging (other
   than military)..............
  121 Child credit\11\.........    23,480    23,350    23,500    23,620    23,480    23,450    23,480    117,530
  122 Credit for child and          4,160     4,200     4,310     4,460     4,590     4,690     4,760     22,810
   dependent care expenses.....
  123 Credit for disabled              30        30        30        30        30        40        40        170
   access expenditures.........
  124 Deductibility of             39,260    43,600    46,630    50,600    54,940    59,390    64,250    275,810
   charitable contributions,
   other than education and
   health......................
  125 Exclusion of certain            380       380       390       380       370       370       360      1,870
   foster care payments........
  126 Exclusion of parsonage          737       720       758       798       840       885       931      4,212
   allowances..................
  127 Indian employment credit.        50        40        20        20        20        10        10         80
Health:
  128 Exclusion of employer       185,330   196,010   207,200   217,140   229,000   241,070   256,290  1,150,700
   contributions for medical
   insurance premiums and
   medical care\12\............
  129 Self-employed medical         6,140     6,670     6,970     7,240     7,550     7,870     8,170     37,800
   insurance premiums..........
  130 Medical Savings Accounts /    3,110     3,900     4,890     6,110     7,630     9,440    11,720     39,790
    Health Savings Accounts....
  131 Deductibility of medical      8,010     8,090     8,560     8,910     8,840     9,370    10,510     46,190
   expenses....................
  132 Exclusion of interest on      3,430     3,790     4,210     4,740     5,220     5,570     5,970     25,710
   hospital construction bonds.
  133 Refundable Premium                0         0    -3,940    -4,060    -5,740    -6,290    -6,540    -26,570
   Assistance Tax Credit\13\...
  134 Credit for employee             630       870     1,050     1,040       760       470       330      3,650
   health insurance expenses of
   small business\14\..........
  135 Deductibility of              4,470     4,980     5,350     5,820     6,340     6,880     7,460     31,850
   charitable contributions
   (health)....................
  136 Tax credit for orphan         1,040     1,260     1,520     1,830     2,210     2,660     3,210     11,430
   drug research...............
  137 Special Blue Cross/Blue         190       230       360       430       480       440       370      2,080
   Shield deduction............
  138 Tax credit for health            10         0         0         0         0         0         0          0
   insurance purchased by
   certain displaced and
   retired individuals\15\.....
  139 Distributions from              320       360       400       440       460       480       500      2,280
   retirement plans for
   premiums for health and long-
   term care insurance.........
Income security:
  140 Exclusion of railroad           380       370       360       350       320       300       270      1,600
   retirement system benefits..
  141 Exclusion of workers'        10,090    10,310    10,500    10,640    10,790    10,950    11,100     53,980
   compensation benefits.......
  142 Exclusion of public             770       790       820       860       900       940       980      4,500
   assistance benefits (normal
   tax method).................
  143 Exclusion of special             30        30        30        20        20        20        20        110
   benefits for disabled coal
   miners......................
  144 Exclusion of military           110       110       110       110       110       110       110        550
   disability pensions.........
  Net exclusion of pension
   contributions and earnings:
  145 Defined benefit employer     37,860    40,090    42,340    44,750    47,270    49,160    51,440    234,960
   plans.......................
  146 Defined contribution         50,670    59,380    61,050    77,020    88,740    92,770    94,820    414,400
   employer plans..............
  147 Individual Retirement        19,310    17,450    17,480    18,540    19,630    20,650    21,720     98,020
   Accounts....................
  148 Low and moderate income       1,190     1,200     1,210     1,260     1,300     1,280     1,300      6,350
   savers credit...............
  149 Self-Employed plans......    19,400    23,300    25,530    28,100    30,890    33,860    37,150    155,530
  Exclusion of other employee
   benefits:
  150 Premiums on group term        1,910     1,940     1,980     2,030     2,080     2,130     2,180     10,400
   life insurance..............
  151 Premiums on accident and        310       310       310       320       320       330       330      1,610
   disability insurance........
  152 Income of trusts to              20        20        30        40        40        50        60        220
   finance supplementary
   unemployment benefits.......
  153 Special ESOP rules.......     1,650     1,730     1,810     1,910     2,000     2,090     2,200     10,010
  154 Additional deduction for         30        30        30        30        40        40        40        180
   the blind...................
  155 Additional deduction for      2,380     2,560     2,800     3,040     3,310     3,610     3,850     16,610
   the elderly.................
  156 Tax credit for the               10        10        10        10        10        10        10         50
   elderly and disabled........
  157 Deductibility of casualty       310       340       360       380       400       420       430      1,990
   losses......................
  158 Earned income tax             4,070     4,330     4,330     4,400     4,520     4,640     4,550     22,440
   credit\16\..................
Social Security:
  Exclusion of social security
   benefits:
  159 Social Security benefits     26,440    28,730    29,840    30,900    31,920    33,010    34,260    159,930
   for retired workers.........
  160 Social Security benefits      8,200     8,560     8,740     8,930     9,100     9,250     9,420     45,440
   for disabled workers........
  161 Social Security benefits      3,760     3,970     4,100     4,300     4,470     4,540     4,740     22,150
   for spouses, dependents and
   survivors...................
Veterans benefits and services:
  162 Exclusion of veterans         4,620     5,080     5,490     5,980     6,500     7,080     7,700     32,750
   death benefits and
   disability compensation.....
  163 Exclusion of veterans           410       430       450       470       480       490       510      2,400
   pensions....................
  164 Exclusion of GI bill            980     1,110     1,160     1,240     1,320     1,410     1,500      6,630
   benefits....................
  165 Exclusion of interest on         10        10        20        20        30        30        30        130
   veterans housing bonds......
General purpose fiscal
 assistance:
  166 Exclusion of interest on     28,440    31,450    35,010    39,420    43,400    46,340    49,660    213,830
   public purpose State and
   local bonds.................
  167 Build America Bonds\17\..         0         0         0         0         0         0         0          0
  168 Deductibility of             44,020    46,710    49,290    53,450    58,120    62,800    67,140    290,800
   nonbusiness State and local
   taxes other than on owner-
   occupied homes..............
Interest:
  169 Deferral of interest on       1,020     1,080     1,090     1,100     1,120     1,130     1,140      5,580
   U.S. savings bonds..........
                                                                                                      ----------
                                                                                                       7,243,734
                                                                                                      ==========
Addendum: Aid to State and
 local governments:
  Deductibility of:
    Property taxes on owner-       29,290    31,740    33,880    36,570    39,600    42,730    45,770    198,550
     occupied homes............
    Nonbusiness State and local    44,020    46,710    49,290    53,450    58,120    62,800    67,140    290,800
     taxes other than on owner-
     occupied homes............
  Exclusion of interest on
   State and local bonds for:
    Public purposes............    28,440    31,450    35,010    39,420    43,400    46,340    49,660    213,830
    Energy facilities..........        20        30        30        30        30        30        30        150
    Water, sewage, and                450       490       560       630       690       730       790      3,400
     hazardous waste disposal
     facilities................
    Small-issues...............       170       190       210       230       250       280       290      1,260
    Owner-occupied mortgage         1,230     1,360     1,510     1,700     1,880     2,000     2,140      9,230
     subsidies.................
    Rental housing.............     1,000     1,090     1,230     1,390     1,520     1,640     1,750      7,530
    Airports, docks, and              740       820       920     1,030     1,130     1,210     1,300      5,590
     similar facilities........
    Student loans..............       510       560       620       700       760       820       880      3,780
    Private nonprofit               2,240     2,480     2,760     3,120     3,430     3,660     3,930     16,900
     educational facilities....
    Hospital construction......     3,430     3,790     4,210     4,740     5,220     5,570     5,970     25,710
    Veterans' housing..........        10        10        20        20        30        30        30        130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Firms can tax an energy grant in lieu of the energy production credit or the energy investment credit for
  facilities placed in service in 2009 and 2010 or whose construction commenced in 2009 and 2010. The effect of
  the grant on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $8,080; 2014 $4,710; 2015 $2,520; 2016
  $1,580; 2017 $330; 2018 $0; 2019 $0.
\2\In addition, the alcohol fuel mixture credit results in a reduction in excise tax receipts (in millions of
  dollars) as follows: 2013 $10; 2014 $0; 2015 $0; 2016 $0; 2017 $0; 2018 $0; 2019 $0. The alternative fuel
  mixture credit results in a reduction in excise tax receipts (in millions of dollars) as follows: 2013 $350;
  2014 $200; 2015 $0; 2016 $0; 2017 $0; 2018 $0; 2019 $0.
\3\In addition, the biodiesel producer tax credit results in a reduction in excise tax receipts (in millions of
  dollars) as follows: 2013 $1600; 2014 $610; 2015 $0; 2016 $0; 2017 $0; 2018: $0; 2019 $0.
\4\In addition, the provision has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013 $40; 2014 $50; 2015 $50; 2016
  $50; 2017 $50; 2018 $50; 2019 $50.
\5\In addition, the provision has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013 $50; 2014 $60; 2015 $60; 2016
  $60; 2017 $60; 2018 $60; 2019 $60.
\6\In addition, recovery zone bonds have outlay effects (in millions of dollars) as follows: 2013 $160, 2014
  $160, 2015 $160, 2016 $160; and 2017 $160; 2018 $160; 2019 $160.
\7\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the American opportunity tax credit on receipts. The effect
  of the credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $4,040; 2014 $6,170; 2015 $6,280; 2016
  $6,280; 2017 $6,090; 2018 $5,970; 2019 $2,680.
\8\In addition, the credit for holders of zone academy bonds has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars):
  2013 $20; 2014 $30; 2015 $30; 2016 $30; 2017 $30; 2018 $30; and 2019 $30.
\9\In addition, the provision for school construction bonds has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013
  $940; 2014 $940; 2015 $940; 2016 $940; 2017 $940, 2018 $940, and 2019 $940.
\10\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the adoption tax credit on receipts. The effect of the
  credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $0.
\11\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the child tax credit on receipts. The effect of the credit
  on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $21,660; 2014 $21,680; 2015 $21,700; 2016 $21,600;
  2017 $21,680; 2018 21,930; and 2019 $15,790.
\12\The figures in the table indicate the effect on income taxes of the employer contributions for health. In
  addition, the effect on payroll tax receipts (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $117,920; 2014
  $122,990; 2015 $127,980; 2016 $132,400; 2017 $138,330; 2018 $145,270; 2019 $153,870.
\13\In addition, the premium assistance credit provision has outlay effects (in millions of dollars) as follows:
  2014 $34,020, 2015 $55,140; 2016 $70,610; 2017 $82,150; 2018 $86,460; 2019 $90,600.
\14\In addition, the small business credit provision has outlay effects (in millions of dollars) as follows:
  2013 $80; 2014 $100; 2015 $110; 2016 $120; 2017 $110; 2018 $70; 2019 $50.
\15\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the health coverage tax credit on receipts. The effect of
  the credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $120; 2014 $30; 2015 $0.
\16\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the earned income tax credit on receipts. The effect of the
  credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $56,760; 2014 $58,430; 2015 $58,070; 2016
  $58,360; 2017 $59,500; 2018 $60,900; and 2019 59,330.
\17\In addition, Build America Bonds have outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013 $3,190; 2014 $3,190;
  2015 $3,190; 2016 $3,190; 2017 $3,190; 2018 $3,190, and 2019 $3190

Note: Provisions with estimates denoted normal tax method have no revenue loss under the reference tax law
  method. All estimates have been rounded to the nearest $10 million. Provisions with estimates that rounded to
  zero in each year are not included in the table.

                          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 $528.9 billion in budget authority 
and $566.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that 
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $521.3 
billion in budget authority and $558.8 billion in outlays. This 
is the amount provided for in the Bipartisan Budget Act. 
Mandatory spending in 2015 is $7.7 billion in budget authority 
and $7.7 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $6.3 trillion and $6.2 trillion, 
respectively.
    Over the last five years, the Department of Defense has 
repeatedly revised downward its estimates of the budgetary 
resources necessary to meet the nation's security needs:
     In 2011, Secretary Gates proposed a $178 billion 
``efficiency initiative.''
     In 2011, the President announced a further $400 
billion defense-budget reduction that ballooned to $487 billion 
by the next budget submission in 2012.
     In 2013, Secretary Hagel proposed another $120 
billion reduction from the Budget Control Act's ``pre-
sequester'' caps.
     And in 2014, the budget request is approximately 
$184 billion lower than the Budget Control Act's ``pre-
sequester'' caps.
    These repeated reductions in the requested defense budget 
are taking place in the context of an international environment 
that remains exceptionally challenging. In his testimony on the 
intelligence community's annual worldwide threat assessment, 
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that 
he had ``not experienced a time when we've been beset by more 
crises and threats around the globe.''\29\ Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has 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.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\James R. Clapper, ``Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the 
National Security of the United States,'' 11 Feb. 2014.
    \30\General Martin Dempsey, Testimony to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, 12 Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to a shrinking defense budget, the defense 
program--the collection of forces, acquisition programs, 
construction projects, and the like--continues to be under-
resourced. Each year, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has 
reviewed the defense program and determined that the defense 
budgets requested are insufficient to implement that program. 
The most recent report found that the Defense Department's 
fiscal year 2014 budget was on average $33 billion short of 
providing for the full costs of the program as estimated by 
CBO.\31\ While CBO has not yet analyzed this year's request, 
there is little reason to believe its analysis will be 
substantially different from its previous reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Congressional Budget Office, ``Long-Term Implications of the 
2014 Future Years Defense Program,'' Nov. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today in U.S. defense policy, there are two big mismatches: 
first, between the threats we face and the resources we've 
committed to meeting them, and second, between our stated 
policy and the budget that the President has requested. This 
budget seeks to resolve these contradictions by restoring 
defense budgets to the levels dictated by the national-security 
interests of the nation.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Supporting Our Men and Women in Uniform. Military personnel 
costs have grown 41 percent in real terms since 2001 and now 
consume about one-third of the base budget for the Department 
of Defense. Maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer military 
requires robust compensation. However, given the explosive 
growth in compensation costs, the possibilities for reform must 
be examined. The Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission 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.\32\ 
In future years, serious consideration must be given to the 
Commission's recommendations if this defense program is going 
to be realized within existing budgets. Nonetheless, this 
budget does not assume any savings from accounts providing for 
the compensation (including health care) of military personnel. 
The budget fully reflects the amendments made to the Bipartisan 
Budget Act to exempt all service members who first joined the 
military before January 1, 2014 from the temporary reduction in 
cost-of-living adjustments for working-age retirees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\See Title VI, Subtitle H of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, P.L. 112-239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Force Structure. The President has proposed significant 
reductions in the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps, 
with the Army slated to be smaller than at any time since 
before World War II. While the ground component should not 
continue to be sized for prolonged counterinsurgency 
operations, the level of reductions contemplated by the 
President's request entails significant risk in an environment 
that, as has been noted, is extremely challenging and 
uncertain. This budget contemplates funding in excess of the 
President's request, which could be used, in part, to forestall 
this risky drawdown.
    Any reductions in military end strength should be 
accompanied by reductions in the civilian and contractor 
workforce, which has ballooned in recent years and is now 
approximately the same size as the active-duty military, a 
ratio that is out of balance. Reductions by the Secretary of 
Defense should focus on performance while retaining vital 
functions that directly support the uniformed force.
    This year's defense-budget request calls into doubt the 
ability of the Navy to maintain 11 carrier strike groups. The 
Future Years Defense Program does not include maintenance of 11 
carrier strike groups, but the Navy has announced that if the 
President's defense request is funded by Congress, then it 
would reprogram the funding needed to maintain this desired 
level of naval force. The flexibility and capabilities provided 
by carrier strike groups are integral to the rebalance of our 
security posture toward Asia and to our security commitments in 
the Persian Gulf. This budget contemplates funding in excess of 
the President's request, which could be used, in part, to 
maintain the 11 carrier strike groups called for under 
longstanding defense plans.
    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) a 
substantial share of the Navy's surface combatants; and (3) 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. For example, the 
President's budget proposes to cancel the latest attempt by the 
Army to modernize its ground-combat vehicle fleet. While the 
Ground Combat Vehicle program may be cancelled, the need to 
recapitalize the Army's vehicle fleet will remain. Budgets 
within the next ten years will have to accommodate that need.
    Compounding the fiscal challenge of this procurement ``bow 
wave'' is the reality that defense acquisition has consistently 
exceeded planned budgets. While the Government Accountability 
Office's latest review of the defense acquisition portfolio 
found that 64 percent of the major programs had gained buying 
power in the previous year, whether this limited progress will 
be sustained is uncertain.\33\ The Armed Services Committee has 
launched a long-term effort to reform the Department of 
Defense. This Durable Defense Reform initiative will among 
other things look for ways to improve the affordability of 
defense acquisition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Government Accountability Office, ``Defense Acquisitions: 
Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs,'' Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 living up to this 
responsibility. Although the Department hopes to have its 
budgetary information 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 the Treasury; 
the U.S. Agency for International Development; and the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
    Over the past decade, funding for the international-affairs 
budget has increased by almost 80 percent, adjusting for 
inflation. Unfortunately, the growth in spending is not 
reflected in a comparable growth in results. Duplicative 
programs, programs unrelated to vital U.S. national interests, 
and inefficiencies are prevalent in the budget and should be 
addressed. This budget reflects a thorough re-evaluation of 
accounts in Function 150 and prioritizes programs that are both 
integral to the core mission 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.

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $38.7 billion in budget authority 
and $39.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that 
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $39.1 
billion in budget authority and $40.2 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending in 2015 is -$402 million in budget authority 
and -$1.1 billion in outlays. (The negative figures reflect 
receipts from foreign-military sales and foreign-military-
financing transactions). The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $429.6 billion and $402.5 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 provide foreign assistance to support energy-efficient 
technologies intended to reduce energy use and mitigate 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 budget 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. When reduction decisions are 
made about these accounts, programs that receive matching 
foreign-government contributions, such as the Fulbright 
program, and are in line with U.S. strategic interests, should 
remain a priority.
    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 
Contributions to International Organizations [CIO] account, 
which provides funding for 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 from the 
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. Funding foreign aid and 
helping other nations rise toward prosperity keep 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 the 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 outcomes 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. 
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. Although some changes have been made 
to the agency's practices, success continues to remain 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 and Stabilization Operations 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.
    International Religious Freedom. The United States should 
promote freedom of religion or belief around the world, given 
the importance of religious freedom to human rights, economic 
development, stability, and democracy. The independent U.S. 
Commission on International Religious Freedom [USCIRF] has 
provided important oversight and recommendations in this 
regard, including redirecting and conditioning aid. It calls 
for budget justifications to take into account the findings and 
recommendations of USCIRF. Additionally, the Office of 
International Religious Freedom continues to serve as an 
important voice on these issues in the State Department and 
should be supported.
    Diplomatic Security. This budget is dedicated to protecting 
American officials and facilities overseas and fully funds the 
President's request for both the State Department's Diplomatic 
Consular Programs and Embassy Security, Construction, and 
Maintenance accounts. Combined, the fiscal year 2015 funding 
level for these two accounts is an 8 percent increase compared 
to fiscal year 2013 enacted levels.
                     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 $27.9 billion in budget authority 
as well as outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that total, 
discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $27.8 billion 
in budget authority and $27.8 billion in outlays. Mandatory 
spending in 2015 is $100 million in budget authority and $98 
million in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority 
and outlays are $308.2 billion and $303.7 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 
while shifting the focus back to basic research. 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 core principles to support robust 
space capability, to allow for exploration beyond low Earth 
orbit, and to support our scientific and 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. In fiscal year 
2014, an enacted level of $64.5 billion dollars was dedicated 
to research government-wide. Nearly half of that was dedicated 
to applied research. The unique role of the federal government 
is in supporting basic research, and funding should be 
distributed accordingly. For example, 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's 
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 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.''\34,35\ 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.\36\ And the administration refuses 
to answer for the lack of job creation and growth resulting 
from almost $16 billion spent on ``stimulus'' grants--almost a 
quarter of them to European and Asian renewable-energy 
companies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Terry Dinan, ``CBO Testifies on Federal Financial Support for 
Fuels and Energy Technologies,'' Congressional Budget Office, 13 Mar. 
2013.
    \35\Congressional Budget Office, ``How Much Does the Federal 
Government Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy 
Technologies,'' 6 Mar. 2012.
    \36\Energy Information Administration, ``Direct Federal Financial 
Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010,'' July 2011.
    \37\House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``American Taxpayer 
Investment, Foreign Corporation Benefit,'' 17 Jan. 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 its failed 
solar panels.\38\ Another grant recipient, A123, was given 
permission to hand out as much as $3.7 million in bonuses to 
top executives as a part of its bankruptcy proceedings.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Sandoval, Michael, ``Bankrupt Abound Solar to Bury Unused Solar 
Panels in Cement,'' Heritage Foundation, 26 Feb. 2013.
    \39\Paul Chesser, ``A123's Executives Get Their Richly Undeserved 
Bonuses,'' National Legal and Policy Center, 13 Nov. 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 2009, the White House has 
generated over $494 billion in regulatory activity--and $112 
billion in 2013 alone.\40\ With more than $87.6 billion in 
regulatory costs pending already in 2014,\41\ the regulatory 
cost burden of this administration is sure to increase to well 
over half a trillion dollars by the end of the year. 
Regulations already 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.\42\ The additional burden added by the current 
administration is further stifling opportunity for job creation 
and growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Batkins, Sam, ``A Regulatory Flurry: The Year in Regulation, 
2013,'' American Action Forum, 8 Jan. 2014.
    \41\Id.
    \42\Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of Regulatory 
Costs on Small Firms,'' Small Business Research Survey, Sept. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All energy sources should be developed without undue 
government interference. However, the administration continues 
to pick winners and losers in the market, and it is crowding 
out disfavored energy sources in the private sector. Its 
officials have promoted changes to explicitly raise energy 
costs. In 2008, Steven Chu, who later served as 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.''\43\ Then-candidate Barack Obama agreed, arguing in 
January of 2008: ``Under my plan of a cap and trade system, 
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Neil King Jr. and Stephen Power, ``Times Tough for Energy 
Overhaul,'' Wall Street Journal, 12 Dec. 2008.
    \44\Ed Morrissey, ``Obama: I'll Make Energy Prices `Skyrocket','' 
HotAir.com, Available at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-
ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/; Accessed: 25 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 2013 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--a promise he expanded on in a major climate speech last 
summer at Georgetown University. 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 DOE's Energy Information 
Administration, gasoline prices averaged $2.40 a gallon in 
2009, the year the President took office. By 2013, gasoline 
prices averaged $3.58, the second most expensive annual average 
according to its data. (They hit their highest average in 
2012.) In 2012, that worked out to $2,912 in average household 
gasoline expenditures. (DOE has not provided average household 
gasoline expenditures for 2013 yet.) 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 $2.7 billion in budget authority 
and $4.5 billion in outlays in discretionary spending in fiscal 
year 2015. Mandatory spending in 2015 is $1.5 billion in budget 
authority and $1.3 billion in outlays. The totals reflect both 
new spending and 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 
partially offset spending in this function. The ten-year totals 
for budget authority and outlays are $30 billion and $32.5 
billion, respectively, for discretionary spending. The ten-year 
totals for budget authority and outlays are -$23.5 billion and 
-$28.6 billion, respectively, for mandatory spending. The 
negative balances reflect the proceeds described above fully 
offsetting and overcoming future expenditures.
    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. At the same time, 
private-sector innovation in the oil and gas industry, which 
doesn't cost the government a dime, increased oil production on 
non-federal lands by 31 percent, and gas production on non-
federal lands by 25 percent from fiscal year 2009 to 2012.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Humphries, Mark, ``U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in 
Federal and Non-Federal Areas,'' Congressional Research Service, 7 Mar. 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      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 $32 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-guaranty beneficiaries have included manufacturers 
creating jobs overseas, such as Fisker, which was provided over 
$500 million and ended up assembling cars in Finland.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Matthew Mosk, Brian Ross and Ronnie Greene, ``Car Company Gets 
U.S. Loan, Builds Cars in Finland,'' ABC News, 20 Oct. 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Allison, Herb, ``Report of the Independent Consultant's Review 
with Respect to the Department of Energy Loan and Loan Guarantee 
Portfolio,'' 31 Jan. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
                    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 led to better government, and the 
increase in spending in this function has only invited 
mismanagement and duplication.
    The fiscal year 2015 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. It also 
supports the resources and environmental activities in this 
function. Specifically, it provides funding for strong 
stewardship of wildlife resources, fisheries, oceanography, and 
insular areas. Additionally, the resolution provides funding 
for responsible management of the National Park System, public 
lands nationwide, monuments, and other public objects of 
interest. Finally, the budget encourages a cost-effective 
approach to environmental regulation and increases funding for 
wildfire suppression to ensure funds are available for healthy 
forest management and to minimize ecological harm from fires 
that do occur.
    One of the President's very first initiatives was to cancel 
oil and gas 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 de facto moratorium that 
had been lifted in 2008. Oil production on federally controlled 
lands and in federally controlled waters declined from 2009 to 
2012 by 6 percent, while natural-gas production on federal 
property declined 21 percent over the same period. 
Additionally, the President refuses to approve the Keystone XL 
Pipeline project, which has been in limbo for over five years. 
According to the State Department, construction of the Keystone 
XL pipeline would create more than 42,000 jobs, while other 
studies have estimated the project would create in excess of 
100,000 jobs. The project would also contribute billions 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 37 years.\48\ But the federal 
government is standing in the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\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, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While total U.S oil production is at its highest level in 
two decades, production on federal property has declined in 
recent years. This is particularly problematic, because the 
federal government owns nearly one-third of the land in the 
country--an area roughly four times the size 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.\49\ Our country has 223 billion barrels 
of recoverable oil\50\ and enough natural gas to meet the 
country's demand for over 90 years.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\Carl Behrens and Gene Whitney, ``U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: 
Terminology, Reporting and Summary,'' Congressional Research Service, 
30 Nov. 2010.
    \50\``Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An 
Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United 
States,'' U.S. Department of Energy, June 2013.
    \51\Id. and ``Natural Gas Consumption by End Use,'' U.S. Energy 
Information Administration, Accessed 13 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Natural Resources and Environment budget function funds 
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 $34.3 billion in budget authority 
and $39.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2015 totals $32.2 billion, with $37.3 
billion in related outlays; mandatory spending is $2 billion in 
budget authority and $2.1 billion in outlays. Over ten years, 
budget authority totals $367.9 billion, and outlays are $375.8 
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 specific 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 (LWCF) has 
typically ranged between $250 million and $450 million. The 
President's budget requested $900 million for fiscal year 2015 
and proposed removing the account from the annual 
congressional-review and -appropriations process. The 
President's proposed change would occur in two phases. In 2015, 
the LWCF would receive a $350 million discretionary 
appropriation and $550 million in mandatory spending. Beginning 
in 2016, the entire $900 million would become mandatory 
spending in perpetuity. The federal government is already 
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 keeps funding for land acquisition under 
congressional oversight and 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, primarily by reducing the 
funding federal agencies spend on overseas climate-change 
activities. It also 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.
    Improve Forest Service Management Practices and Fully Fund 
Wildfire Suppression. Wildland Fire Management funding serves 
multiple purposes, the most prominent of which are wildfire 
prevention and wildfire suppression. The Department of the 
Interior and the U.S. Forest Service share wildfire-management 
responsibilities and receive funding to do so as part of the 
regular appropriations process. Under current law, these 
agencies are authorized to shift funds from prevention accounts 
into suppression accounts if suppression needs are underfunded. 
These transfers occur frequently, because wildfire suppression 
is underfunded almost every year. The President's fiscal year 
2015 budget adopts a potentially more accurate forecasting 
model to better predict wildfire-funding needs. However, 
instead of requesting the full amount indicated by their new 
model as sufficient funding for wildfire suppression, the 
President's budget requests $1.2 billion less than the 
projected need and asks Congress to provide the other $1.2 
billion outside of the discretionary budget caps enacted by 
Congress and the President.
    This budget fully funds the President's wildfire-
suppression request, including the additional $1.2 billion, 
within the discretionary budget caps for fiscal year 2015. The 
budget also calls for improving forest-management practices by 
directing the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service 
to use the funds provided to remove excess growth and improve 
forest health, which will make forests less susceptible to 
catastrophic wildfires. The budget assumes adoption of 
commonsense reforms under the bipartisan Restoring Health 
Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which streamlines the 
regulatory process and restores active management to federal 
timberlands while protecting the environment. If fully 
implemented, the budget would preclude the current practice and 
need to frequently transfer funds to the wildfire-suppression 
accounts from other Wildland Fire Management accounts, like the 
hazardous-fuels-reduction accounts. This will provide important 
protections for the accounts that help prevent wildfires.
    Finally, to ensure that the suppression accounts are fully 
funded in future years, the budget calls on the Office of 
Management and Budget to include the U.S. Forest Service's 
Outyear Forecast model projections--the ones used in the 
President's fiscal year 2015 request--in all future budget 
submissions to Congress. The President would be required to 
either request an amount at least equal to the amount called 
for by the model or, if the President requests less than called 
for by the model, provide a side-by-side table of the model's 
estimate of needed funding and why he believes those additional 
funds are not necessary.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Expand Onshore and Offshore Energy Production. Despite the 
existence of abundant domestic resources, the federal 
government has adopted policies that hinder American production 
of oil and natural gas on federal lands and in federal waters. 
Breaking free of future dependence on energy supplies from 
countries whose interests differ from ours, 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.
    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 it has only paid at 
most $30,000 annually--or eight cents an acre foot of water 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.
                       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. The recently passed Farm Bill made a 
number of reforms to agricultural assistance programs, most 
notably eliminating Direct Payments and reforming the nation's 
crop-insurance system.
    Though farm income in 2014 is projected to be below recent 
record-high levels, the Agriculture Department's Economic 
Research Service projects that the farm sector's financial 
position will remain strong.\52\ With federal deficits 
continuing, debt hitting new highs, and food prices going up, 
it remains important to reform agricultural-support programs, 
while maintaining a strong safety net for farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\``Farm Financial Position Expected to Remain Strong Despite a 
Forecast Drop in 2014 Income,'' Amber Waves, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 4 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $19.0 billion in budget authority 
and $19.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary 
spending in fiscal year 2015 is $6.1 billion in budget 
authority and $6.0 billion in outlays; mandatory spending, the 
majority of the function's total, is $13.0 billion in budget 
authority, with outlays of $13.6 billion. The ten-year totals 
for budget authority and outlays are $197.9 billion and $193.8 
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. The 
recently passed Farm Bill reformed commodity programs, most 
notably by eliminating Direct Payments. However, this area 
remains ripe for reform. The budget takes into consideration 
the savings that the Farm Bill achieved and then proposes that 
additional savings be found. Under this option, mandatory 
agricultural outlays, other than food and nutrition programs, 
will be reduced by $23 billion relative to the currently 
anticipated levels from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 
2024. These savings could be achieved by continuing to reform 
assistance programs for agriculture. 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 their efforts to bolster free enterprise, economic 
growth, and upward mobility. 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 -$4.3 
billion in budget authority and -$15.8 billion in outlays in 
fiscal year 2015. Of that total, 2015 discretionary spending is 
-$12.9 billion in budget authority and -$12.5 billion in 
outlays. Mandatory spending in 2015 is $8.6 billion in budget 
authority and -$3.4 billion in outlays. The function totals 
over ten years are -$67.4 billion in budget authority and 
-$244.7 billion in outlays.
    On-budget totals for fiscal year 2015 are -$3.2 billion in 
budget authority and -$14.8 billion in outlays. Of these 
amounts, discretionary budget authority is -$13.2 billion, with 
outlays of -$12.7 billion. Mandatory on-budget spending for 
fiscal year 2015 is $10.0 billion in budget authority and -$2.0 
billion in outlays. Over ten years, the on-budget totals are 
-$52.4 billion in budget authority and -$229.6 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 2015 are -$1.1 billion in 
budget authority and -$1.1 billion in outlays. Of these 
amounts, discretionary totals are $263 million in budget 
authority and $263 million 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 2015 is -$1.3 billion in budget 
authority and -$1.3 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the 
mandatory off-budget totals are -$18.2 billion in budget 
authority and -$18.2 billion in outlays. The negative totals 
for budget authority and outlays in the off-budget portion of 
this function represent savings from recommended policy 
proposals described below for the U.S. Postal Service.

                      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-finance, 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. Subsidies to businesses 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.
    For example, as of March 2013, the SEC had 3,950 full-time 
employees, and an average salary across the agency of over 
$155,000. SEC's budget has risen by more than 45 percent since 
fiscal year 2007. If the President's fiscal year 2015 budget 
request were granted, SEC's budget would grow by another 26 
percent in just one fiscal year.
    In its 2014 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 bail-out of Bear Stearns and the 
        collapse of Lehman Brothers and fed 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 examine the Reserve Primary Fund, a large 
        money market fund that broke-the-buck in September 
        2008; 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 
        increase almost 66 percent since 2004.

    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. 
Instead, 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 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. Having outlived their original 
purpose, both programs should be terminated.
    Terminate Corporation for Travel Promotion. In 2010, 
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 any industry. Moreover, the 
travel industry can and should pay for the advertising that it 
benefits from.
    Restrict FDIC Authority Provided by Dodd-Frank 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. 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. In 2008, the federal 
government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into 
conservatorship to prevent them from going bankrupt. Treasury 
has already provided $187 billion in bailouts to Fannie and 
Freddie, and as long as the entities remain in conservatorship, 
taxpayers remain exposed to Fannie and Freddie's over $5 
trillion of outstanding commitments. 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. Despite recent dividend payments by 
Fannie and Freddie, both enterprises continue to assume 
outsized risks that place the taxpayer in jeopardy in the event 
of future downturns in the housing market.
    Since Treasury stepped in to provide additional bailout 
funds, Fannie and Freddie's dominance in the mortgage market 
has grown. In 2013, the GSEs accounted for 60 percent of first-
lien mortgage originations, with FHA and VA backing an 
additional 19 percent. In 2005 and 2006, the GSE's share of 
first-lien originations was closer to 30 percent. Additionally, 
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae now dominate the market 
for the issuance of new single-family, 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, this resolution envisions 
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, 
which could include measures described in H.R. 2767, the 
Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act of 2013.
    Reform the Credit Reform Act to Incorporate Fair-Value 
Accounting Principles. As the exposure of the taxpayer to 
Fannie and Freddie continues, taxpayers are also exposed to 
bailing out another housing giant: the Federal Housing 
Administration. The capital ratio of FHA's Mutual Mortgage 
Insurance fund has remained below the congressionally mandated 
2 percent level since the financial crisis. While the capital 
ratio improved from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013, it 
was still negative at the conclusion of the last fiscal year. 
Additionally, FHA drew $1.7 billion from Treasury in 2013 
because it did not have sufficient funds to cover expected 
future losses.
    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 
federal agency 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 
(USPS) is unable to meet its financial obligations and is in 
desperate need of structural reforms. In fiscal year 2013, USPS 
had an operating loss of $1 billion and defaulted on another 
$5.6 billion payment to prefund the retirement health care of 
their employees. As of fiscal year 2013, the USPS had a total 
of approximately $112 billion in unfunded long-term debt, 
including promised health-benefit compensation for Postal 
retirees, workers' compensation, and debt owed to the Treasury.
    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 25 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 $19 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 $34.7 billion in budget authority 
and $80.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2015 is $30.9 billion, with outlays of 
$79.4 billion; and mandatory spending is $3.8 billion in budget 
authority and $1.3 billion in outlays. The large discrepancies 
between budget authority and outlays here result 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 
$734.6 billion, with outlays of $789.1 billion.
    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) 
surface-transportation authorization act provided stable 
funding for major construction projects in 2013 and 2014. 
However, the law did not include reforms to keep the program 
solvent beyond the authorization period.
    Maintaining the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the 
policy of the trust fund being user-fee supported is a 
priority. With the Highway Trust Fund facing insolvency in late 
2014 or early 2015, 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 $16 to $17 billion.
    As a result of these chronic shortfalls, the trust fund has 
required several large general-fund contributions totaling more 
than $52 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 and a $2.4 billion transfer from 
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
    Despite these large recent infusions, CBO estimates that 
the Highway Trust Fund still faces insolvency in 2015 once MAP-
21 expires. Over the next decade, CBO projects a growing gap 
causing the Highway Trust Fund to run cumulative cash deficits 
of nearly $173 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 and ensure that 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.
    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, specific 
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 Amtrak Operating Subsidies. The 
budget supports eliminating operating subsidies that have been 
insulating Amtrak from making the structural reforms necessary 
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 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. Recently, wasteful 
procurement practices led to over $185 million in screening 
equipment sitting unused in expensive storage facilities. 
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.
    Prioritize Rail Safety. The budget supports the vital role 
of the Federal Railroad Administration in ensuring freight and 
passenger-rail safety, while reducing spending in non-essential 
transportation programs.

                           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 in fiscal year 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, while at the same time 
providing flexibility for a surface-transportation 
reauthorization that does not increase the deficit. The budget 
includes a reserve fund to provide for the adjustment of budget 
levels for consideration of surface-transportation legislation, 
as long as that legislation is deficit neutral.
    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. 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.
            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 $14.6 billion in budget authority 
and $23.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2015 is $13.3 billion, with $21.9 billion 
in associated outlays. Mandatory spending in 2015 is $1.3 
billion in budget authority and $1.7 billion in outlays. The 
ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $154.5 
billion and $170.5 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 program. CDBG is an annual formula 
grant directed to state and local governments to address a 
broad array of initiatives. In 2014, $3.1 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. Urban Area Security Initiative 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, while at the same time proposing further steps 
to eliminate overlap and inefficiencies 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. From 1953 
to 1992, presidents made 1,153 total disaster declarations--
including Major Disasters Declarations, Emergency Declarations, 
and Fire Management Assistance Declarations--for an average of 
29 declarations per year.\53\ The last three administrations 
alone have made more than 2,400 declarations to date, including 
a single-year high of 242 made by the current administration in 
2011. 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.
    This 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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``Disaster Declarations by 
Year,'' Mar. 2014.
                   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. But even 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 them 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 
[GAO] 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 $73.9 billion in budget authority 
and $91.8 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. In that year, 
discretionary spending is $92.1 billion in budget authority and 
$95.6 billion in outlays; mandatory spending in 2015 is -$18.2 
billion in budget authority and -$3.9 billion in outlays. Over 
ten years, spending in this function totals $864 billion in 
budget authority and $889 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 10.5 million Americans are unemployed. 
Yet they also report 4 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 the 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. He echoed the 
request in his 2014 State of the Union address, charging Vice 
President Biden with conducting a review of the job-training 
system, despite the work already done by GAO and the Education 
and the Workforce Committee. 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 
reported legislation to that end, which passed the House in 
March 2013.
    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.
    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 2015 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. These laws 
expanded eligibility for Pell Grants and increased Pell Grant 
funding. These expansions, along with a dramatic rise in the 
number of eligible students due to the recession, have caused 
program costs to explode since 2008, from $16.1 billion in 2008 
to an estimated $26.9 billion in fiscal year 2015. Pell was 
traditionally funded as a discretionary program. Instead of 
confronting the cost drivers of the program, a Democratic 
Congress began to increasingly rely on mandatory funding to 
solve its discretionary shortfalls. Based on current CBO 
estimates, the program will again face a shortfall in fiscal 
year 2016.
    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 2015 budget only 
provides funding for an increased level of award through the 
2016-2017 award 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 2013-2014 
award year of $5,730 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 by 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. 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 provide 
funding to students and others who work in certain areas of 
public service. Participation in these programs is not based on 
need. The United States has a long history of robust volunteer 
work and other efforts that provide services to communities and 
individuals. Americans' generosity in contributing their time 
and money to these efforts is extraordinary and should be 
encouraged. However, 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 
a percentage 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 February, the House Committee on the 
Budget reported H.R. 1872, the Budget and Accounting 
Transparency Act of 2014, 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 some of the future spending by repealing the 
expansion of the Income-Based Repayment program. SAFRA made the 
income-based repayment 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.
    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 will 
grow at a rate of 9 percent per year through 2018--far faster 
than the growth of the overall economy. The Congressional 
Budget Office projects federal spending on this program to be 
$298 billion in fiscal year 2014. This is expected to nearly 
double within the next ten years, reaching $574 billion by 
fiscal year 2024.
    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' 2012 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook on 
Medicaid, total state spending will rise from about $157 
billion in fiscal year 2011 to $317 billion in fiscal year 
2021.
    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 them for 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 $792 
billion over the 2015-2024 period. This is due to the millions 
of new beneficiaries that the law drives into the program. In 
fact, CBO estimates that in 2024, 13 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 $419.8 billion in budget authority 
and $416.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. 
Discretionary spending for the year is $55.7 billion in budget 
authority and $59.1 billion in outlays; mandatory spending is 
$364.1 billion in budget authority and $357.4 billion in 
outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays 
are $4.12 trillion and $4.11 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 critical, and one set of potential approaches is 
described below.

                           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 that each state could 
tailor to meet its 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 the 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.
    The Medicaid reforms proposed in the fiscal year 2015 
budget provide all states with the necessary flexibility to 
pursue reforms similar to the Indiana plan.
    Based on this kind of reform, this budget assumes $732 
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 in Medicaid, the new health-care 
law would increase the eligible population for the program by 
one-third. For fiscal years 2015 through 2024, CBO projects the 
new law will increase federal spending by $792 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 $792.4 
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 $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 or make health decisions that violate their 
religious beliefs. This budget provides for the repeal of 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 health-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 $1.2 
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. This budget assumes full repeal of 
all of the new health-care law's tax increases as part of 
comprehensive tax reform.
                         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. In CBO's latest Long-Term Budget Outlook, mandatory 
spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent of GDP by 
2040 and 9.4 percent of GDP by 2088. Medicare's trustees 
project that Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be 
bankrupt by 2026.
    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 $519.2 billion in budget authority 
and $519.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. 
Discretionary spending is $6.7 billion in budget authority and 
$6.6 in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Mandatory spending in 2015 
is $512.5 billion in budget authority and $512.8 in outlays. 
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $6.8 
trillion and $6.8 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 is intended to be an insurance program that 
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. Medicare is an open-
ended, blank-check entitlement that operates under a rigid and 
bureaucratic fee-for-service payment system. This current 
structure 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. Unfortunately, the government has 
been slow to innovate and 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. For those who were 55 
or older in 2013, they would remain in the traditional Medicare 
system.
    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.
    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. In September 2013, the Congressional Budget Office 
analyzed illustrative options of a premium support system. They 
found that a program in which the premium-support payment was 
based on the average bid of participating plans would result in 
savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal 
government.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\Congressional Budget Office, ``A Premium Support System for 
Medicare: Analysis of Illustrative Options,'' 18 Sept. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, 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 to 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. Also starting in 
2024, the age of eligibility for Medicare would begin to rise 
gradually to correspond with Social Security's retirement age 
and the fee-for-service benefit would be modernized to have a 
single deductible and by reforming supplemental insurance 
policies.
    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 repeals the health-care law's new rationing board, 
the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
    Medical-Liability-Insurance Reform. This budget also 
advances commonsense 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.
    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, 
with the same provisions the President's proposed in his fiscal 
year 2014 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 
federal-employee-retirement and disability benefits (including 
military retirees); general retirement and disability insurance 
(excluding Social Security)--mainly through the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation--and benefits to railroad 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 $505.7 billion in budget authority 
and $505.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. 
Discretionary spending is $62.3 billion in budget authority and 
$64.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Mandatory 
spending in 2015 is $443.4 billion in budget authority and 
$440.4 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for mandatory 
budget authority and outlays are $4.4 trillion and $4.4 
trillion, respectively.
    The Committee's recommendation is a disciplined budget that 
will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to set 
priorities and achieve efficiencies. In addition to 
implementing needed reforms in these programs, it will avoid 
the sudden and arbitrary benefit cuts 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 Outreach 
Funding. This budget assumes that outreach funding for the SNAP 
program is reduced, and the reduction is shifted toward 
programs that facilitate upward mobility, such as properly 
reformed job-training programs.
    Make Responsible Reforms to Housing-Assistance Programs. 
This resolution supports taking actions that would make 
housing-assistance programs more sustainable and work to direct 
federal dollars to serve those most in need. Spending on the 
Tenant-Based Section 8 program increased by 80 percent from 
2005 to 2013. However, HUD's most recent Worst Case Housing 
Needs Report to Congress suggests the number of families who 
are severely rent burdened or live in substandard conditions 
continues to grow.\55\ Reforms are needed both to ensure the 
affordability of these programs to the taxpayer and to ensure 
that assistance is available to those most in need. One reform 
could include the gradual expansion of the Moving to Work 
program to high-performing public housing authorities. Moving 
to Work gives public housing authorities more flexibility in 
how they spend funds so that they can serve families more 
efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\``Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress,'' U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           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 $83 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 the recession is long past. 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, states can provide as little as $20 
in LIHEAP benefits in order to increase SNAP benefits (see 
``Categorical Eligibility'' above). The recently passed Farm 
Bill reformed this practice, but it did not end the abuse 
entirely--and this proposal would.
    Eliminate the Failed Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] 
Housing Subsidies. This resolution supports ending the loan-
subsidy initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program 
[HAMP], created by the Obama administration as a part of TARP 
for distressed homeowners. In addition to serving far fewer 
households than planned, HAMP has experienced alarmingly high 
re-default rates. The Special Inspector General for the 
Troubled Asset Relief Program's most recent quarterly report 
states that $1.1 billion of TARP monies have been spent through 
HAMP on modifications that ultimately re-defaulted.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\``Quarterly Report to Congress,'' Office of the Special 
Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 29 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eliminate Certain Waivers from Work Requirements for Abled-
Bodied Adults without Dependents. H.R. 3102, the Nutrition 
Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013 included the 
elimination of certain waivers from SNAP work requirements for 
Abled-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWDs). As was 
demonstrated by the welfare reforms of the 1990s, work 
requirements are central to ensuring that public assistance 
helps individuals transition to independence.
    Institute 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 calls for 
rescinding 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 contributed to the 
largest sustained reduction in child poverty since the onset of 
the ``Great Society.'' It also calls for the Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture to test work-first pilot 
projects under the authority granted by Sec. 4022 of the 
Agriculture Act of 2014.
    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. 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. This option would save an estimated $125 
billion over ten years.
    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.''\57\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\U.S. House, Committee on Ways and Means. Contract with America: 
Welfare Reform, Part 2, Hearing, February 2, 1995 (Serial No. 104-44). 
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eliminate the Ability to Receive Both Unemployment 
Insurance and Disability Insurance. This option would eliminate 
the ability of individuals to receive both Unemployment 
Insurance benefits and Disability Insurance benefits. A 
condition of receiving UI benefits is that the individual is 
available and seeking work. In direct contradiction, Disability 
Insurance is available to benefit only those who are unable to 
work. The President included a similar proposal in his fiscal 
year 2015 budget. This could save up to $5.4 billion over ten 
years.
                     FUNCTION 650: SOCIAL SECURITY


                            Function Summary

    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 programs. Under provisions of 
the Congressional Budget Act and the Budget Enforcement Act, 
the 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 calling 
on policymakers to come to the table and enact commonsense 
reforms to keep the program solvent for current beneficiaries 
and make it stronger for future generations.
    More immediately, the Disability Insurance program is 
expected to go bankrupt in 2016. This will require a nearly 25 
percent cut to the benefits of current recipients. The Obama 
administration has called on diverting funds from the 
retirement system (Old Age and Survivors Insurance or OASI) for 
Social Security to the Disability Insurance system.\58\ This 
will accelerate the insolvency of the OASI trust fund, 
necessitating earlier cuts to Social Security benefits for 
current and future retirees. This budget does not support the 
raid on the OASI trust fund--rather, it continues to call for a 
bipartisan solution to Social Security's finances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\In March 5 testimony before the House Budget Committee, Sylvia 
Burwell said that the administration supported ``Congress for taking 
the efforts that it [has] historically taken with regard to 
reallocation of the trust.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Disability Insurance program has seen huge growth over 
the past decades. According to a 2012 report by the 
Congressional Budget Office, the share of working-age adults 
receiving Disability Insurance benefits rose from 1.3 percent 
to 4.5 percent. CBO also predicts that the share of working-age 
adults will continue to rise, reaching 5.0 percent in 2022. 
This increase in the number of adults on Disability Insurance 
has also sharply increased spending. As a percentage of GDP, 
the DI program was .27 percent in 1970; CBO is projecting that 
in 2024 the DI program will be .72 percent of GDP.

                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 
$31.4 billion in budget authority and $31.5 billion in outlays 
in fiscal year 2015. Over ten years, the on-budget totals are 
$453.5 billion in budget authority and $453.6 billion in 
outlays.
    In the off-budget category, the budget calls for $864.5 
billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2015 and $860.5 
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2015. Over ten years, the 
off-budget totals are $11.4 trillion in budget authority and 
$10.3 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, [Social Security] 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.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\U.S. House, Committee on the Budget. The Congressional Budget 
Office's Budget and Economic Outlook, Hearing, 13 Feb. 2013 (Serial No. 
113-1). Washington: Government Printing Office, 2013.

    Social Security's fragile condition poses a serious problem 
that threatens to break the broader compact in which workers 
support current retirees, 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 support 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 fails to the meet 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 took several 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, in the House, 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 80 percent, while mandatory 
costs have increased 119 percent, mostly attributable to 
increasing disability compensation and the expansion of 
benefits.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $153.0 billion in budget authority 
and $153.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. 
Discretionary spending is $65.5 billion in budget authority and 
$65.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. This in an 
increase of 3 percent from last year's discretionary level. 
Mandatory spending in 2015 is $87.6 billion in budget authority 
and $87.5 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $1.8 trillion and $1.8 trillion, 
respectively.
    This resolution also accommodates up to $58.662 billion for 
fiscal year 2016 in advance appropriations for medical care, 
consistent with the Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform 
Transparency Act of 2009.
    This budget does not assume any savings in Function 700 and 
fully funds the nation's commitment to the services and 
benefits earned by veterans through their selfless military 
service. This budget matches the President's discretionary 
request for fiscal year 2015, in addition to matching the 
President's fiscal year 2016 request for advance appropriations 
for veteran medical care. It also fully funds the mandatory 
benefits provided for under current law according to CBO's 
estimates. As of the writing of this concurrent resolution, CBO 
has yet to revise its current-law baseline, and the resolution 
provides the authority for the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to adjust the mandatory funding levels in this budget to 
reflect CBO's updated baseline. Veterans are, and will remain, 
the highest priority within this budget.
    However, the committee is concerned with the VA's progress 
in eliminating the disability-claims backlog and ending veteran 
homelessness. While funding for the Veterans Benefits 
Administration and homelessness initiatives has significantly 
increased in recent years to achieve these goals by 2015, 
success remains elusive. The committee will continue to closely 
monitor VA's progress to ensure resources provided by Congress 
are sufficient and efficiently used to achieve these top 
priorities as soon as possible.
                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. It includes most of the Department of Justice and 
several components of the Department of Homeland Security.
    Activities funded within this function include the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; 
border 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.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $54 billion in budget authority 
and $54.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary 
spending is $52.1 billion in budget authority and $52.8 billion 
in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Mandatory spending in 2015 is 
$1.9 billion in budget authority and $1.4 billion in outlays. 
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $619.9 
billion and $619.3 billion, respectively.
    According to the Government Accountability Office [GAO], 
from fiscal year 2005 to 2011, over $30 billion was 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.\60\ The GAO 
has determined that many of these grants were awarded without 
consideration of overlap or duplication with other DOJ grant 
programs, leading to significant waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Government Accountability Office, ``2012 Annual Report: 
Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 
Savings, and Enhance Revenue,'' Feb. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With the risk of terrorism as well as a tidal wave of debt, 
federal taxpayer money for the Departments of Justice and 
Homeland Security should be focused on administering justice, 
arresting and prosecuting terrorists, investigating crimes, and 
seeking punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior. Local 
law enforcement is the responsibility of the states and 
communities, and they should determine the best course of 
action in deterring crime. This 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 
have identified overlap and duplication within many of these 
grant programs, and it is clear that they 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. Elizabeth's project, the largest federal 
building project in D.C. since the Pentagon.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Extend Customs User Fees. Continuing the policy of the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, the budget assumes that the 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection continues to collect 
customs user fees through 2024. With the passage of the BBA, 
authority to collect these fees expires in 2023.
                    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; 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 stimulus act increased the General 
Services Administration's budget by $5.8 billion, for example.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $23.7 billion in budget authority 
and $23.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that 
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $17.3 
billion in budget authority and $16.8 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending in 2015 is $6.4 billion in budget authority 
and $6.8 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $247.3 billion and $244.3 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 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. The 
budget reflects the changes to the Presidential Election 
Campaign Fund due to the passage of the Gabriella Miller Kids 
First Research Act.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    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. The National 
Association of Secretaries of State, the association of state 
officials responsible for administering elections, 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. The IRS has over 85,500 
employees and spends more than $12 billion annually. The 
Internal Revenue Code now contains approximately 4 million 
words, and each year taxpayers and businesses spend over 6 
billion hours complying with filing requirements.\61\ The 
President's budget makes the tax code more complex and proposes 
to increase the IRS budget by approximately $1.2 billion. This 
resolution calls for simplifying the burdensome tax code 
through tax reform, naturally reducing the agency's size by 
promoting policies that lead to less reliance on the IRS. As 
outlined in a 2012 GAO report, simplifying our increasingly 
complex tax code may reduce accidental errors in tax filing and 
improve voluntarily compliance.\62\ A simplified tax code would 
have the dual benefits of reducing both the time taxpayers 
devote to complying with an overly complex code and the 
taxpayer dollars needed to administer and enforce it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\``2013 Annual Report to Congress,'' National Taxpayer Advocate, 
31 Dec. 2013.
    \62\``Opportunities to Improve the Taxpayer Experience and 
Voluntary Compliance,'' GAO, 26 April 2012.
                       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.
    According to CBO, if we do nothing, net interest payments 
are projected to nearly quadruple from $233 billion in 2014 to 
$880 billion by 2024. At this alarming growth rate, net 
interest spending is projected to exceed the entire amount 
spent on national defense by 2020. Reducing interest costs will 
require sustained spending restraint. This budget resolution 
provides such restraint, and it reduces net interest by $893 
billion over ten years compared with the CBO baseline.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $267.3 billion in mandatory budget 
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2015. The ten-year totals 
for budget authority and outlays are $4.9 trillion.
    On-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are $366.0 
billion in fiscal year 2015 and $6.0 trillion over ten years. 
The on-budget figures are larger than the function totals 
because the former are offset by off-budget interest payments 
from the general fund to the Social Security Trust Fund, which 
are reflected as off-budget collections (negative numbers).
    These off-budget mandatory collections (negative budget 
authority and outlays) amount to $98.7 billion in fiscal year 
2015, and -$1.1 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, the President and 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 2014 baseline was released, CBO 
did not provide forward-looking, 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 $575 
billion and $521 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 two components 
are included in the baseline:
    1. A $534 billion and $480 billion reduction in non-defense 
budget authority and outlays, respectively, needed to comply 
with the discretionary spending caps set by section 101 of the 
BCA.
    2. A $41 billion reduction in both budget authority and 
outlays to non-Medicare and non-defense mandatory programs 
necessary to comply with the automatic-enforcement procedure 
(i.e. sequester) mandated by the BCA.
                 FUNCTION 930: GOVERNMENT-WIDE SAVINGS


                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    Function 930 includes various policies that produce 
government-wide budget effects in multiple functions rather 
than in a single, specific budget function. The resolution 
calls for spending $25.9 billion and $20.1 billion in budget 
authority and outlays, respectively, in fiscal year 2015. The 
ten-year totals for budget authority and outlay savings are 
-$501.8 billion and -$396.0 billion, respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options


                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Abiding by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. The total 
base discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2015 
assumed in the resolution is $1,013.6 billion--the same level 
set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA). The resolution 
offers approximately $26 billion in fiscal year 2015 non-
defense discretionary savings in several budget functions 
should Congress choose to enact additional deficit reduction 
next year. Because these additional savings would cause the 
resolution to display a lower total base discretionary level 
than contemplated by the BBA, $26 billion in non-defense 
discretionary spending is added back to Function 930 in order 
to make the total budget-resolution base discretionary level 
match the amount specified in the BBA.
    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 who 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.
    Reform Civil Service Pensions. 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.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Program Integrity. This budget assumes program integrity 
savings by assuming that Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) 
and Supplemental Security Income Redeterminations are fully 
funded and that additional steps are taken to reduce improper 
payments in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance 
programs. By ensuring that all benefits are targeted towards 
the appropriate households, this budget will reduce fraud and 
improper payments in these programs. This could save up to $27 
billion over ten years.
            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 -$95.6 billion in budget 
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2015 (with the minus sign 
indicating receipts into the Treasury). Over ten years, budget 
authority and outlays total -$1.1 trillion.
    On-budget amounts are -$78.6 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2015, and -$935.3 billion in budget 
authority and outlays over ten years.
    Off-budget amounts are -$17.0 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2015, and -$201.4 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. Complex procedural requirements, lack of 
organization, and delayed data reporting provide agencies very 
little incentive to dispose of unneeded properties and very few 
repercussions for holding onto these properties indefinitely. 
According to the most recent Federal Real Property Report, from 
fiscal year 2012, the federal government owns or leases over 
360,000 buildings and 485,000 structures. Of the buildings in 
the federal government's portfolio, non-defense buildings 
accounted for at least 148,000 of the total.
    The government's track record for real-estate asset sales 
has been poor. The fiscal year 2012 report shows that of the 
23,663 assets the federal government disposed of in that year, 
6,066, or 25.6 percent, were disposed of via demolition. Only 
515, or 2.2 percent, were disposed of through a sale. Many 
assets were simply given away at below-market value or even for 
free.
    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 nearly 
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.
                   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 $85.4 billion in budget authority 
and $52.6 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2015. These 
amounts are the same as the President's request. This function 
accommodates all of the funding requested by the Department of 
State for the incremental, non-enduring civilian activities in 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. However, because troop levels 
beyond the end of 2014 are undecided, this budget includes the 
same $79.4 billion placeholder for the Department of Defense as 
the President's budget. The fact that this function includes a 
temporary placeholder is not an invitation for the funding 
budgeted in this function to be used as a reserve fund for 
other activities not related to the war.
    The budget resolution includes authority for the chairman 
of the Budget Committee to adjust the relevant levels and 
allocations for war-related spending to account for a future 
budget request from the President consistent with the decisions 
that are ultimately made on troop levels. In making any 
adjustments, the Budget Committee will be vigilant that the 
OCO/GWOT cap adjustment is not abused as a means of evading the 
statutory caps on discretionary spending.
    The Budget Control Act of 2011 allows the discretionary 
caps to be automatically increased for funding designated for 
OCO/GWOT, which has created a loophole that could be used to 
circumvent discretionary funding caps. For FY 2014, Congress 
and the President enacted an appropriations bill that provided 
$7.4 billion more than the Administration requested for OCO. 
Abuse of the OCO/GWOT cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole 
that undermines the integrity of the budget process. The Budget 
Committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities with 
respect to the use of the OCO/GWOT designation in the FY 2015 
budget process, and it will oppose increases above the levels 
the Administration and our military commanders say are needed 
to carry out operations unless it can be clearly demonstrated 
that such amounts are war-related.
    Defense Activities. The United States and the Government of 
Afghanistan have negotiated a Bilateral Security Agreement, 
which is currently awaiting approval by the Afghan government. 
The outgoing president of Afghanistan has refused to sign the 
agreement, leaving the ultimate disposition of the agreement to 
be determined by the next president, who will be elected in 
April. Until the agreement is concluded, the U.S. Government 
has been unable to determine what the troop level will be after 
2014 and therefore what funding will be needed.
    Civilian Activities. This budget fully funds the $5.9 
billion request 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.
    However, the Committee notes concern regarding past, 
present, and future use of OCO/GWOT funds for civilian efforts:
     In past legislation, including the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2014, OCO/GWOT has been used to fund 
accounts that the Committee does not view as critical to 
efforts related to the global war on terrorism, for example 
Education and Cultural Exchange Programs. Funding for these 
programs should be provided within their respective base 
budgets.
     Wasteful spending of war funding, especially for 
Afghanistan reconstruction efforts, is unacceptable. The 
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has 
highlighted several recent examples, including multi-million-
dollar infrastructure projects that have never been used, nor 
will be used for the intended purpose, if at all. The Committee 
will continue to closely monitor the use of OCO/GWOT funds to 
ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and efficiently 
in achieving our strategic goals overseas. Continued reports of 
waste, fraud, and/or abuse will be taken into consideration as 
OCO/GWOT funding levels are determined going forward.
     The administration's decision to expand the scope 
of programs eligible for OCO/GWOT funding to include not only 
the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but 
also Syria, Africa, and other areas of conflict, could lead to 
potential abuse of the OCO/GWOT designation. OCO/GWOT was 
originally intended to fund only extraordinary, and thus 
temporary, costs of U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
Pakistan. While this budget fully supports U.S. missions in 
other conflict areas, it does not recommend expanding OCO's 
purpose and believes such missions should be funded in the 
relevant base budget accounts in Function 150.
                                REVENUE

                              ----------                              


    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. 
This budget proposes to solve this problem by calling for a 
reformed tax code that is simpler, fairer, and pro-growth.

                               Challenge

    The current tax code is needlessly complex. It is estimated 
that individuals, families, and employers spend over 6 billion 
hours and over $160 billion a year trying to negotiate a 
labyrinth of special rules, deductions and tax schedules. Over 
the past decade alone, there have been more than 4,400 changes 
to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of the major 
changes over the years have involved carving out special 
preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various activities 
or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 trillion per 
year. To put that figure in perspective, that is nearly the 
same amount that we collected in individual income taxes last 
year. Many of the deductions and preferences in the system are 
mainly used by a relatively small class of mostly higher-income 
individuals.
    The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the code 
ends up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base requires much 
higher tax rates to raise a given amount of revenue. 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
    The top tax rate has actually risen and fallen dramatically 
throughout U.S. history, with little effect on tax revenue as a 
share of the economy. For instance, the top U.S. tax rate has 
been as high as 90 percent and as low as 28 percent, but 
income-tax revenue has remained fairly steady despite these 
sharp rate swings. It turns out that the biggest driver of 
revenue to the federal government isn't higher tax rates, but 
economic growth. And the lion's share of economists point out 
that a tax system with a broad tax base and low rates are keys 
to fostering economic growth and competitiveness.
    One important hallmark of the U.S. economy is the 
importance of smaller, unincorporated businesses. 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.
    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. This tax discourages 
investment and job creation, distorts business activity, and 
puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage against 
foreign competitors. Yet the tax itself raises relatively 
little revenue--only 10 percent of the total federal revenue 
take comes from taxing corporate income. Any tax that raises 
little revenue and creates a lot of economic distortions is 
particularly ripe for reform.
    Elevated corporate tax rates hinder American 
competitiveness by making the U.S. a less desirable destination 
for investment and jobs. Business location and investment 
decisions are becoming ever more sensitive to country tax rates 
as global integration increases. Foreign investment is 
important to an economy because it is a key source of funding 
to finance innovation and jobs. To enhance their 
competitiveness, many countries have been lowering business 
taxes. But the U.S. risks falling behind as it maintains its 
high tax rate while other countries lower theirs. 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.
    The structure of U.S. international taxation is also out of 
sync with the international standard used by the majority of 
other countries, putting U.S. businesses operating abroad at a 
competitive disadvantage. Most countries operate under a so-
called ``territorial'' system of international taxation, 
whereby their businesses operating abroad are only subject to 
the tax of the country where they do business. The U.S. has an 
antiquated ``worldwide'' system of international taxation, 
whereby U.S. multinationals operating abroad pay both the 
foreign-country tax and U.S. corporate taxes when profits are 
repatriated. They are essentially taxed twice. This puts them 
at an obvious competitive disadvantage. 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.

                    Solution: Pro-Growth Tax Reform

    Given the many problems with the current system, Congress 
should enact legislation that provides for a comprehensive 
reform of the U.S. tax code to promote economic growth, create 
American jobs, and increase wages. This can be achieved through 
revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform 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 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;
     repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
     reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent; and
     transitions the tax code to a more competitive 
system of international taxation.
    Economists have shown that lowering overall rates and 
broadening the tax base will promote economic growth and 
support job creation by the private sector.
    This resolution calls on comprehensive tax reform and lays 
out some principles, but it does not embrace any particular 
plan. There are many good ideas on that front--growth-oriented 
tax plans that could strengthen the economy and support the 
nation's funding priorities.
    Ways and Means Committee Chairman David Camp has proposed a 
comprehensive, revenue-neutral tax reform plan that would lower 
individual and corporate tax rates and remove a number of 
distortions in the code. The Joint Committee on Taxation has 
analyzed this plan and determined that it would increase real 
GDP by between 0.1 percent and 1.6 percent depending on the 
economic model used.
    Congressman Burgess has also introduced a plan to 
dramatically simplify the tax code by offering individuals and 
businesses the option to pay a single flat tax on their income 
instead of navigating the maze of existing tax provisions. His 
plan would also repeal estate and gift taxes.
    In addition, Congressman Woodall 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 these and the full myriad of pro-
growth plans as it moves toward implementing the tax reform 
called for under this budget.
                         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 
fiscal year 2013 was $2.3 trillion and will grow to over $4 
trillion by 2024, reflecting an average annual growth rate of 
5.4 percent--much faster than both CBO's projection of 2013 
nominal economic growth of 3.3 percent and CBO's longer-term 
projection of economic growth of 4.1 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 $813 billion in 2013 to $1,514 billion in 
2024 and Medicare expected to grow from $585 billion in 2013 to 
$1,087 billion in 2024.
    Over the next decade, the major means-tested entitlements 
are expected to grow by 5.4 percent per year--from $694 billion 
in 2015 to $1,083 billion in 2024. 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 inflation-adjusted 
dollars in 1962, or approximately 2.6 percent of total federal 
outlays and 0.5 percent of GDP. Just over the past ten years, 
major means-tested entitlement programs have grown 6.8 percent 
per year, from $354 billion in 2005 to a projected $639 billion 
in 2014.
    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 from $29 
billion in 2004 to $83 billion in 2013. 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 Bills 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 a 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. The most 
recent Farm Bill partially addressed this issue, requiring 
states to provide $20 to recipients.
    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. Over the past 
decade, spending on SSI has grown by 6.9 percent 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 
(CHIP)--has grown from $187 billion in 2005 to a projected $312 
billion in 2014. Going forward, CBO projects federal Medicaid 
and CHIP spending to nearly double over the next ten years, 
from $343 billion in fiscal year 2015 to $580 billion in fiscal 
year 2024. 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 them for 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, Medicaid grew at 5.4 percent a year over the past 
ten years, and it is projected to grow at an astounding 6.8 
percent a year over the next ten years. This level of growth is 
clearly unsustainable.

                             FY 2015 BUDGET

    The fiscal year 2015 budget addresses both non-means-tested 
and means-tested direct spending. Most importantly, it 
addresses the primary 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 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.
    As Congress works to address high unemployment and weak 
economic growth, this budget is premised on the belief that the 
prospect of upward mobility should be in the 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 educational 
opportunities and from moving up the ladder of opportunity to 
join the middle class. By balancing the budget, implementing 
comprehensive tax reform, and reforming means-tested 
entitlement programs, this resolution is designed to accomplish 
exactly these goals.

                                                             TABLE 10.--HISTORICAL MEANS-TESTED AND NON MEANS-TESTED DIRECT SPENDING
                                                                        [Outlays by fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                       Average
                                                                                                                                                                         Projected     annual
                                                                      2004      2005      2006      2007      2008      2009      2010      2011      2012      2013       2014     growth 2005-
                                                                                                                                                                                        2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Programs:
Health Care Programs:
  Medicaid........................................................       176       182       181       191       201       251       273       275       251       265         298          5.4%
  Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidies\a\.........................         0         0        11        17        17        19        21        26        20        22          24         10.0%
  Health insurance subsidies......................................         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0         0          15           n.a
  Children's Health Insurance Program.............................         5         5         5         6         7         8         8         9         9         9          14         11.8%
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal......................................................       181       187       197       213       225       277       302       309       279       297         352          6.9%
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Security:
  SNAP............................................................        29        33        35        35        39        56        70        77        80        83          80         10.9%
  Supplemental Security Income....................................        34        38        37        36        41        45        47        53        47        53          54          4.8%
  Earned income and child tax credits.............................        42        49        52        54        75        67        77        78        77        79          82          6.9%
  Family support and foster care\b\...............................        31        31        30        31        32        33        35        33        30        32          31          0.2%
  Child nutrition.................................................        12        13        14        14        15        16        17        18        19        20          21          5.6%
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal......................................................       147       163       168       170       202       217       247       260       254       266         268          6.2%
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans' Pensions................................................         3         4         4         3         4         4         4         5         5         5           6          5.2%
Pell Grants\c\....................................................         0         0         0         0         1         2         4        14        12        16          13           n.a
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Means-Tested Programs...............................       331       354       369       386       431       501       557       589       550       584         639          6.8%
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Means-Tested Programs\d\......................................     1,015     1,094     1,188     1,242     1,349     1,787     1,553     1,646     1,710     1,753       1,766          5.7%
  Social Security
  Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
  Medicare (excluding Medicare Part D Subsidy)
  Federal Civilian and Military Retirement Programs
  Veterans Programs (excluding Veterans' pensions)
  Agriculture programs
  Troubled Asset Relief Program
  Deposit Insurance
  All other mandatory programs not included in the means-tested
   list above
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Mandatory Outlays.......................................     1,346     1,448     1,556     1,628     1,780     2,288     2,110     2,235     2,260     2,338       2,405          6.0%
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum:
Pell Grants (Discretionary).......................................        13        13        13        13        15        13        20        21        21        17          18          3.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: The average annual growth rate over the 2005-2014 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount recorded in 2004 through the amount projected for 2014. Data on spending for
  benefit programs in this table exclude administrative costs that are classified as discretionary but generally include administrative costs classified as mandatory.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; n.a. = not applicable.

* = between zero and $500 million.

a. The average annual growth rate reflects the program's growth from its inception in 2006 through 2014.
b. Includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and various programs that involve payments to states for child support enforcement and family support, child care entitlements, and research
  to benefit children.
c. Includes mandatory spending designed to reduce the discretionary budget authority needed to support the maximum award level set in the appropriation act plus mandatory spending that, by
  formula, increases the total maximum award above the amount set in the appropriation act.
d. Does not include offsetting receipts. List provided by House Budget Committee based on CBO's most recent Budget and Economic Outlook.


                                         TABLE 11.--PROJECTED MEANS-TESTED AND NON MEANS-TESTED DIRECT SPENDING
                                                    [Outlays by fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Average
                                                                                                                                               annual
                                2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023      2024    growth 2015-
                                                                                                                                                2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Outlays:
Health Care Programs:
  Medicaid..................       298       328       368       393       413       437       461       487       515       543       574          6.8%
  Medicare Part D Low-Income        24        26        30        31        32        37        40        44        51        53        54          8.3%
   Subsidies................
  Health insurance                  15        41        75        95       104       108       115       122       128       135       143         24.9%
   subsidies\a\.............
  Children's Health                 14        15         7         6         6         6         6         6         6         6         6         -8.6%
   Insurance Program........
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal................       352       410       481       525       555       588       622       659       700       737       775          8.2%
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Security:
  SNAP......................        80        80        79        78        76        76        75        75        74        74        74         -0.8%
  Supplemental Security             54        55        61        59        55        62        64        66        74        71        67          2.1%
   Income...................
  Earned income and child           82        84        87        88        89        78        80        81        82        84        85          0.4%
   tax credits\b\...........
  Family support and foster         31        31        32        32        32        32        32        33        33        33        33          0.6%
   care\c\..................
  Child nutrition...........        21        22        23        23        24        25        26        27        28        30        31          3.9%
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal................       268       272       281       279       277       273       277       282       292       291       291          0.8%
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans' Pensions..........         6         6         6         7         7         7         7         7         8         8         8          3.2%
Pell Grants\c\..............        13         6         7         8        10        10        10        10        10        10        10         -3.1%
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal, Means-Tested         639       694       774       818       848       877       916       958     1,009     1,046     1,083          5.4%
     Programs...............
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Means-Tested Programs\d\     1,766     1,846     1,955     2,035     2,124     2,266     2,399     2,546     2,736     2,851     2,994          5.4%
  Social Security
  Medicare Eligible Retiree
   Health Care Fund
  Medicare (excluding
   Medicare Part D Subsidy)
  Federal Civilian and
   Military Retirement
   Programs
  Veterans Programs
   (excluding Veterans'
   pensions)
  Agriculture programs
  Troubled Asset Relief
   Program
  Deposit Insurance
  All other mandatory
   programs not included in
   the means-tested list
   above
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Mandatory Outlays.     2,405     2,540     2,729     2,853     2,972     3,144     3,315     3,504     3,744     3,897     4,077          5.4%
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum:
Pell Grants                         18        27        29        24        24        25        25        26        26        27        27          3.8%
 (Discretionary)\e\.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: The projections shown here are the same as those reported in Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2014 to
  2024 (February 2014). The average annual growth rate over the 2015-2024 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount projected for 2014 to the
  amount projected for 2024. Projections on spending for benefit programs in this table exclude administrative costs that are classified as
  discretionary but generally include administrative costs classified as mandatory.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

a. Differs from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 of The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024 (February 2014) because it does not include payments
  to reflect the average increase from the amount projected for 2014 to the amount projected for less healthy enrollees, reinsurance (amounts paid to
  plans that enroll individuals who end up with high costs), and risk corridors (amounts paid to health insurance plans whose actual costs for medical
  claims exceed expected costs). According to CBO's projections, that spending will be more than offset by corresponding collections. Spending for
  grants to states to establish exchanges is also excluded.
b. Differs from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 of The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024 (February 2014) because it does not include other tax
  credits.
c. Includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and various programs that involve payments to states for child support enforcement and family
  support, child care entitlements, and research to benefit children.
d. Includes mandatory spending designed to reduce the discretionary budget authority needed to support the maximum award level set in the appropriation
  act plus mandatory spending that, by formula, increases the total maximum award above the amount set in the appropriation act.
e. Does not include offsetting receipts. List provided by House Budget Committee based on CBO's most recent Budget and Economic Outlook.
f. The discretionary baseline does not represent a projection of expected costs for the discretionary portion of the Pell Grant program. As with all
  other discretionary programs, the budget authority is calculated by inflating the budget authority appropriated for fiscal year 2014. Outlays for
  future years are based on those projected amounts of budget authority and on the budget authority provided in 2014.

                      THE LONG-TERM BUDGET OUTLOOK

                              ----------                              


    The growing probability of a debt crisis is the most urgent 
challenge we face today. And the source of the crisis is the 
drift, under both parties, to expand the size of government. To 
avert a future debt crisis, we need to stop this encroachment 
and to revive community in American civil society.
    This budget turns the tide. It makes $5.1 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 
and arbitrary cuts to current services, such as those the 
country would experience in a debt crisis.
    These reductions are hardly draconian. Over the years, 
Congress has put two-thirds of the budget on auto-pilot, and 
spending in those areas grows each year. The Congressional 
Budget Office has said the current laws and policies cannot be 
sustained. However, any effort to restrain the growth in this 
spending is cast as ``cut.''
    Under current policy, the federal government will spend 
$47.8 trillion over the next ten years. Under this proposal, it 
will spend roughly $42.6 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 5.2 percent. Under this 
budget, it will rise by only 3.5 percent.
    Washington cannot keep spending money it does not have. So 
this budget achieves balance in 2024 by bringing spending down 
below 19 percent of GDP by 2024. In the country's entire 
history, Congress has never balanced the budget when spending 
was higher than 18.7 percent of GDP.
    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.
    According to analysis by CBO, the spending path assumed in 
this budget will result in a balanced budget in ten years and a 
growing surplus that will lead to a sharp reduction in the 
national debt. CBO says a small budget surplus of 0.1 percent 
of GDP in 2025 will eventually grow to 1.8 percent of GDP by 
2040. At the same time, debt held by the public will decline 
from over 73 percent of GDP today to 54 percent of GDP in 2025 
to just 18 percent of GDP by 2040--a glide path to fully paying 
off the national debt.
    Over the long term, the budget assumes revenue follows 
CBO's extended baseline and is allowed to grow from 18.4 
percent of GDP in 2024 to 19 percent of GDP by 2035 and then 
remain at that share of the economy through 2040.
    The United States has dealt with financial problems in the 
past. In 1997, a Democratic president and a Republican Congress 
passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 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.
                     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. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015.
    Subsection (a) establishes the budgetary levels for fiscal 
year 2015 and each of the nine years following that budget 
year, fiscal years 2016 through 2024. 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 2015, 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, with 
spending authority. In addition to an allocation for fiscal 
year 2015, the authorizing committees receive an allocation of 
spending authority over the 10-year period provided for by the 
concurrent resolution on the budget and may not spend more than 
the allocation for the budget year or over the 10-year period.
    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 subject to the statutory limit, and 
debt held by the public. 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.
    In general, the debt subject to statutory limit aggregates 
refer 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 2015, the budget 
year, and for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2024.
    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--Recommended Long-Term Levels

Section 201. Long-term budgeting.
    Section 201sets out recommended budgetary levels for 
certain budget aggregates for each of fiscal years 2030, 2035, 
and 2040 as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the 
United States as follows:
Federal Revenues
          Fiscal Year 2030: 18.8 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: 19.0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 19.0 percent
Budget Outlays
          Fiscal Year 2030: 18.5 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: 17.9 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 17.2 percent
Deficits
          Fiscal Year 2030: -0.3 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: -1.1 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: -1.8 percent
Debt
          Fiscal Year 2030: 43.0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: 31.0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 18.0 percent

                        Title III--Reserve Funds

Section 301. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
    Section 301 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 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reform of the 2010 
        health care laws.
    Section 302 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 2015 through 2024. 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 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare 
        provisions of the 2010 health care laws.
    Section 303 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 2015 
through 2024.
    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 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth 
        rate of the Medicare program.
    Section 304 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 2015 through 
2024.
Section 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
    Section 305 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 the House 
considers that reform the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
long as such a measure does not increase the deficit in the 
period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
    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 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
    Section 306 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 
2015 through 2024.
Section 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
    Section 307 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 2015 through 2024. 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 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and 
        schools.
    Section 308 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 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation
    Section 309 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority and to 
adjust other budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution 
for any bill or joint resolution to maintain the solvency of 
the Highway Trust Fund, as long as such a measure does not 
increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 2015 through 
2024.
Section 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and 
        increase opportunity and upward mobility.
    Section 310 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary enforcement 
levels in this resolution for a measure reforming policies and 
programs to reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward 
mobility as long as such a measure neither adversely impacts 
job creation nor increases the deficit in the period of fiscal 
years 2015 through 2024.

                 Title IV--Estimates of Direct Spending

Section 401. 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 2015 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 non-means-tested direct spending for the 10-year 
periods before and after fiscal year 2015 respectively. It also 
proposes reforms to the non-means-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 401.

                      Title V--Budget Enforcement

Section 501. Limitation on advance appropriations.
    Subsection (a) prohibits any general or continuing 
appropriation providing for advance appropriations that do not 
fall into certain specified exceptions.
    Subsection (b) 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.''
    Subsection (c) specifically sets a limit on the amount of 
total allowable advance appropriations for fiscal year 2016. It 
allows advance appropriations of up to $58.662 billion for 
fiscal year 2016 for Veterans Medical Services, Veterans 
Medical Support and Compliance, and Veterans Medical Facilities 
accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
    It also allows up to $28.781 billion for the programs 
referred to in subsection (b).
    Subsection (d) 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 2016.
Section 502. Concepts and definitions.
    Section 502 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget to adjust the levels and allocations in this budget 
resolution upon enactment of legislation changing concepts or 
definitions.
Section 503. 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 2015.
    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) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget to adjust the aggregates, allocations, and budgetary 
levels in this resolution for Overseas Contingency Operations/
Global War on Terrorism to account for any new information 
included in the President's budget submission for fiscal year 
2015.
    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 2015 are set in the fiscal year 2015 Sequester 
Preview Report, which was submitted on March 10, 2014.
    Subsection (c) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget to adjust the 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 (d) 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 504. 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 2025.
    Subsection (b) explains that there are four consecutive 
ten-year periods as referred to in subsection (a) that would be 
as follows:
    Fiscal years 2025 through 2034;
    Fiscal years 2035 through 2044;
    Fiscal years 2045 through 2054;
    Fiscal years 2055 through 2064.
Section 505. 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 House Committee on Appropriations 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, as long as such measure does not 
increase the deficit in fiscal year 2015 and in the period of 
fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
Section 506. 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 504 of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget (the long-term spending point of 
order).
Section 507. 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 508. Transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to the 
        Highway Trust Fund that increase public indebtedness.
    Section 508 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 509. 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 2015 only. 
This separate allocation is the exclusive allocation for OCO/
GWOT under section 302(a).
    Subsection (a) also 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 510. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
    This section provides for the general application of the 
text of this concurrent resolution on the budget.

                      Title VI--Policy Statements

Section 601. 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 602. Policy statement on tax reform.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on pro-growth tax reform 
assumed by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 603. Policy statement on Replacing the President's health care 
        law.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on replacing the 
President's health care law assumed by this concurrent 
resolution on the budget.
Section 604. 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 605. 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.
    Subsection (c) states the policy on the Disability 
Insurance program assumed by this concurrent resolution on the 
budget.
Section 606. Policy statement on higher education affordability and 
        workforce development opportunity.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings on higher education.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on higher education 
affordability assumed by this concurrent resolution on the 
budget.
    Subsection (c) sets out findings on workforce development.
    Subsection (d) states the policy on workforce development 
assumed by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 607. 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.
Section 608. 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 609. 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 610. Policy statement on unauthorized spending.
    Section 610 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.
Section 611. Policy statement on Federal regulatory policy.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on Federal regulation 
assumed by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 612. Policy statement on trade.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is to pursue international trade, 
global commerce, and a modern and competitive U.S. 
international tax system in order to promote job creation in 
the United States.
Section 613. No Budget, No Pay.
    Section 613 states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is that Congress should agree to a 
concurrent resolution on the budget every year pursuant to 
section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section 
613 further states that if by April 15, a House of Congress has 
not agreed to a concurrent resolution in the budget, the 
payroll administrator of that House should carry out this 
policy in the same manner as the provisions of Public Law 113-
3, the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.
                    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 2015), and the 10-year period 
(fiscal years 2015 through 2024). 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 first fiscal year 
and at least the four 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 2015 through 2024.
    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 2015 are measured against the 
level for that year included in the fiscal year 2015 budget 
resolution and also the 10-year period of fiscal year 2015 
through 2024.

                      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 
2015 that commences on October 1, 2014, and a 10-year total for 
fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
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 2015, 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 113th Congress first met on January 3, 2014, for 
the purposes of this concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
budget year is fiscal year 2015.
    In general, bills, conference reports, joint resolutions, 
and 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 12.--ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
                             APPROPRIATIONS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Discretionary Action:
  BA.......................................................    1,013,628
  OT.......................................................    1,145,213
Global War on Terrorism:
  BA.......................................................       85,357
  OT.......................................................       52,580
Current Law Mandatory:
  BA.......................................................      792,819
  OT.......................................................      781,191
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             TABLE 13.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE
               [On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2015          2015-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          91,867         899,235
    OT..................................          90,908         895,879
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................          -2,813        -207,910
    OT..................................          -2,556        -207,260
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................          89,054         691,325
      OT................................          88,352         688,619
                                         ===============================
Armed Services:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................         155,752       1,800,993
    OT..................................         155,609       1,799,840
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         155,752       1,800,993
      OT................................         155,609       1,799,840
                                         ===============================
Financial Services:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          15,472         113,699
    OT..................................           4,917         -59,392
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................          -7,546         -70,509
    OT..................................          -6,933         -70,353
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           7,926          43,190
      OT................................          -2,016        -129,745
                                         ===============================
Education & Workforce:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          -7,217            -595
    OT..................................          -7,507           2,483
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -18,271        -203,318
    OT..................................          -6,378        -185,221
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         -25,488        -203,913
      OT................................         -13,885        -182,738
                                         ===============================
Energy & Commerce:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................         394,347       5,241,142
    OT..................................         388,554       5,232,008
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -43,979      -1,887,802
    OT..................................         -43,452      -1,886,232
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         350,368       3,353,340
      OT................................         345,102       3,345,776
                                         ===============================
Foreign Affairs:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          26,172         234,004
    OT..................................          25,639         230,621
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................          26,172         234,004
      OT................................          25,639         230,621
                                         ===============================
Oversight & Government Reform:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................         109,538       1,293,151
    OT..................................         107,591       1,269,038
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -12,266        -173,394
    OT..................................         -12,266        -173,394
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................          97,272       1,119,757
      OT................................          95,325       1,095,644
                                         ===============================
Homeland Security:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................           2,035          23,688
    OT..................................           1,997          24,077
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           2,035          23,688
      OT................................           1,997          24,077
                                         ===============================
House Administration:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................              42             375
    OT..................................              49             222
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................             -33            -285
    OT..................................             -40            -132
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................               9              90
      OT................................               9              90
                                         ===============================
Natural Resources:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................           5,719          61,568
    OT..................................           6,777          66,392
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................            -700         -20,909
    OT..................................            -597         -20,306
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           5,019          40,659
      OT................................           6,180          46,086
                                         ===============================
Judiciary:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          19,977         104,365
    OT..................................           9,304         104,805
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -11,576         -59,331
    OT..................................            -499         -57,645
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           8,401          45,034
      OT................................           8,805          47,160
                                         ===============================
Transportation & Infrastructure:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          71,941         725,565
    OT..................................          17,463         190,273
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -50,987        -167,500
    OT..................................             -55          -1,080
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................          20,954         558,065
      OT................................          17,408         189,193
                                         ===============================
Science, Space & Technology:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................             101           1,010
    OT..................................              99           1,008
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................             101           1,010
      OT................................              99           1,008
                                         ===============================
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..................................           2,155          88,910
    OT..................................           2,322          90,556
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           2,155          88,910
      OT................................           2,322          90,556
                                         ===============================
Ways & Means:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................       1,001,620      15,431,316
    OT..................................       1,001,253      15,434,824
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -38,060      -1,211,987
    OT..................................         -37,860      -1,211,787
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         963,560      14,219,329
      OT................................         963,393      14,223,037
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        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 BBEDCA occur within 15 days after the end of 
a session of Congress. Sequestration remained 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 budget authority, 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 15 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 if 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 of spending reduction required to 
achieve the specified deficit reduction.
    Since the Joint Committee did not 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 affected both discretionary and 
mandatory spending for fiscal year 2013. This means that 
discretionary amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2013 were 
sequestered by the calculated amount without regard for the 
amount appropriated--i.e., it was 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--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 sequester under section 251(a) of 
BBEDCA 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 BCA sequester was ordered by the 
President, as required by law, on March 1, 2013.

                     BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT OF 2013

    As a result of the budget conference negotiations between 
Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2013 (BBA 13) amended section 251 of BBEDCA to increase the 
limits on discretionary spending for fiscal years 2014 and 
2015. The BBA 13 agreement provided $63 billion in sequester 
relief over two years, split evenly between defense and non-
defense programs. In fiscal year 2014, defense discretionary 
spending was set at $520.5 billion, and non-defense 
discretionary spending was set at $491.8 billion. In fiscal 
year 2015, defense discretionary spending was set at $521.3 
billion, and non-defense discretionary spending was set at 
$492.4 billion.
    The sequester relief was fully offset by reductions in 
mandatory spending elsewhere in the budget. The agreement 
included dozens of specific deficit-reduction provisions, with 
mandatory savings and non-tax revenue totaling approximately 
$85 billion. This included $28 billion in reductions stemming 
from a provision requiring the President to sequester the same 
percentage of mandatory budgetary resources in 2022 and 2023 as 
will be sequestered in 2021 under current law.
                       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 breaches 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 May 15.
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 
are 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 proposition 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.
                        ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR
                         ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

                              ----------                              


             ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

            (Subject to a General Limit of $28,781,000,000)

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 2016

            (Subject to a Separate Limit of $58,662,202,000)

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 2015.
    On April 2, 2014 the Committee met in open session, a 
quorum being present.
    Dr. 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 2015. The Committee on 
the Budget took the following votes:
    1. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Jefferies, Pocan, Lujan 
Grisham, and Doggett to increase discretionary non-defense 
spending at the pre-sequester level set in the Budget Control 
Act to make more investments in education, workforce training, 
scientific research, public health, energy efficiency, and 
manufacturing by decreasing funding for Overseas Contingency 
Operations
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
920 by $80 billion in fiscal year 2016 and outlays by the 
following amounts: $44.800 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$20.400 billion for fiscal year 2017, $7.920 billion for fiscal 
year 2018, $2.880 billion for fiscal year 2019, and $2.800 
billion for fiscal year 2020.
    The amendment would reduce budget authority in Function 970 
by $13.333 billion for fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 
2020 and by $13.335 billion for fiscal year 2021.
    Outlays in Function 970 would be reduced by the following 
amounts: $8.213 billion for fiscal year 2016, $11.240 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $12.386 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$12.866 billion for fiscal year 2019, $13.200 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $13.201 billion for fiscal year 2021, $4.987 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $1.960 billion for fiscal year 
2023, $0.813 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $0.333 billion 
for fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 19 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL                              RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER                              KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor, McDermott, Pocan, Lujan 
Grisham, C rdenas, Blumenauer, Schrader, Doggett and Kildee to 
increase discretionary and mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 700 to reflect the President's budget and 
establish a Veterans Job Corps. The amendment makes all 
discretionary programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs 
subject to advance appropriations.
    The amendment would increase discretionary budget authority 
for Function 700 by $1.657 billion for fiscal year 2016. 
Outlays for Function 700 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.833 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.470 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $0.185 billion for fiscal year 2018, and 
$0.060 billion for fiscal years 2019 and 2020.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority for 
Function 700 by $1.000 billion for fiscal year 2015. Mandatory 
outlays for Function 700 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.050 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.237 billion 
for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, and $0.238 billion for fiscal 
years 2018 and 2019.
    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, closing loopholes in the international 
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals, 
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business 
expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 22 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment offered by Representatives Blumenauer, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, 
Huffman, and C rdenas to establish a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund for a new surface transportation authorization (highway 
bill). The amendment would preclude transfers from the general 
fund of the Treasury into the Highway Trust Fund unless such 
transfers are offset by revenue increases elsewhere.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An amendment offered by Representatives C rdenas, Van 
Hollen, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, 
Jeffries, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, Blumenauer, and Schrader to 
adjust revenue and Function 920 levels to reflect adoption of 
H.R. 15, the House companion to the Senate's Comprehensive 
Immigration Reform bill.
    The amendment would increase aggregate levels of revenue by 
the following amounts: $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2015, $11.5 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $28.0 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $39.1 billion for fiscal year 2018, $45.0 billion for 
fiscal year 2019, $47.7 billion for fiscal year 2020, $55.3 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $65.0 billion for fiscal year 
2022, $77.7 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $87.6 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
for Function 920 by the following amounts: $4.6 billion for 
fiscal year 2015, $6.8 billion for fiscal year 2016, $14.0 
billion for fiscal year 2017, $19.8 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $24.6 billion for fiscal year 2019, $26.6 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $32.2 billion for fiscal year 2021, $37.4 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $44.4 billion for fiscal year 
2023, and $51.4 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment also expresses the sense of the House on 
immigration reform.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, 
Jeffries, Lujan Grisham, C rdenas, Doggett, and Kildee 
expressing a sense of the House on the importance of raising 
the minimum wage.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
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               YARMUTH
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. An amendment offered by Representatives Jeffries, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, McDermott, Pocan, C rdenas, 
and Kildee to extend unemployment insurance.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
600 by $5.750 billion for fiscal year 2015. Outlays for 
Function 600 would change by the following amounts: $5.735 
billion for fiscal year 2015, -$0.260 billion for fiscal year 
2016, -$0.155 billion for fiscal year 2017, -$0.200 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, -$0.235 billion for fiscal year 2019, -$0.220 
billion for fiscal year 2020, -$0.200 billion for fiscal year 
2021, -$0.130 billion for fiscal year 2022, -$0.035 billion for 
fiscal year 2023, and $0.025 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would also reduce budget authority and 
outlays for Function 750 by $3.542 billion each for fiscal year 
2024.
    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, closing loopholes in the international 
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals, 
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business 
expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van 
Hollen, Yarmuth, Ryan (OH), Moore, Castor, McDermott, Pocan, 
Lujan Grisham, C rdenas, and Doggett to increase Medicaid 
funding.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and 
outlays each by the following amounts: $31 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $47 billion for fiscal year 2017, $62 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $71 billion for fiscal year 2019, $80 billion 
for fiscal year 2020, $93 billion for fiscal year 2021, $106 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $118 billion for fiscal year 
2023, and $124 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment also expresses a sense of the House that the 
expansion of Medicaid both reduces rates of adverse health 
effects and benefits state budgets. The amendment is offset 
with tax increases including higher taxes on oil companies, 
changing the depreciation schedules for certain equipment, 
closing loopholes in the international corporate tax system, 
and raising taxes on high-income individuals.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 21 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                                LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Van Hollen, 
Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, Castor, McDermott, Pocan, and 
Doggett expressing a sense of the House on a National Strategy 
to Eradicate Poverty and Increase Opportunity.
    Chairman Ryan offered a substitute amendment, which 
Representative Lee rejected.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham, 
Van Hollen, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Jeffries, 
Pocan, Blumenauer, and Doggett 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 16 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. An amendment offered by Representatives Castor, Van 
Hollen, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), McDermott, Pocan, Lujan 
Grisham, Blumenauer, Doggett, and Kildee relating to funding 
for the National Institutes of Health.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority for 
Function 550 by the following amounts: $2 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $2.181 billion for fiscal year 2016, $2.363 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $2.552 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$2.747 billion for fiscal year 2019, $2.936 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $3.139 billion for fiscal year 2021, $3.362 billion 
for fiscal year 2022, $3.600 billion for fiscal year 2023, and 
$3.846 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    Outlays for Function 550 would increase by the following 
amounts: $1.006 billion for fiscal year 2015, $1.664 billion 
for fiscal year 2016, $2.030 billion for fiscal year 2017, 
$2.269 billion for fiscal year 2018, $2.536 billion for fiscal 
year 2019, $2.722 billion for fiscal year 2020, $2.915 billion 
for fiscal year 2021, $3.121 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$3.342 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $3.574 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    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, closing loopholes in the international 
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals, 
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business 
expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 21 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                                 JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, Pocan, and Doggett 
to increase spending on the Earned Income Tax Credit making it 
available to childless workers paid for by an increase in 
taxes.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
for Function 600 each by the following amounts: $5.200 billion 
for fiscal year 2016, $5.200 billion for fiscal year 2017, 
$5.200 billion for fiscal year 2018, $5.100 billion for fiscal 
year 2019, $5.200 billion for fiscal year 2020, $5.300 billion 
for fiscal year 2021, $5.300 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$5.400 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $5.500 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    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, closing loopholes in the international 
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals, 
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business 
expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 21 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL                               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. An amendment offered by Representatives Ryan (OH), Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, 
C rdenas, Schrader, and Doggett to increase mandatory spending 
in Function 500 to reject the elimination of annual 
inflationary increases in the maximum Pell grant for the next 
ten years.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
500 by the following amounts: $6.505 billion for fiscal year 
2015, $7.349 billion for fiscal year 2016, $9.805 billion for 
fiscal year 2017, $9.653 billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.851 
billion for fiscal year 2019, $10.01 billion for fiscal year 
2020, $9.802 billion for fiscal year 2021, $9.874 billion for 
fiscal year 2022, $9.948 billion for fiscal year 2023, and 
$10.02 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by 
the following amounts: $6.428 billion for fiscal year 2015, 
$6.732 billion for fiscal year 2016, $8.004 billion for fiscal 
year 2017, $9.739 billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.708 billion 
for fiscal year 2019, $9.892 billion for fiscal year 2020, 
$9.952 billion for fiscal year 2021, $9.824 billion for fiscal 
year 2022, $9.893 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $9.967 
billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes 
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on 
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by 
repealing certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 21 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR        X
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN                             BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, Pocan, and Doggett to increase 
mandatory budget authority and outlays in Function 550 to 
ensure Medicaid beneficiaries have access to primary care.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 550 by $5.4 billion each year for the 
period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes 
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on 
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by 
repealing certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes and 21 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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                                POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. An amendment offered by Representatives Huffman, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Pocan, and C rdenas relating to 
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA).
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
500 by the following amounts: $1.433 billion for fiscal year 
2015, $3.045 billion for fiscal year 2016, $4.859 billion for 
fiscal year 2017, $6.900 billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.195 
billion for fiscal year 2019, $11.777 billion for fiscal year 
2020, $14.681 billion for fiscal year 2021, $17.948 billion for 
fiscal year 2022, $21.624 billion for fiscal year 2023, and 
$37.231 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    Outlays for Function 500 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.721 billion for fiscal year 2015, $1.938 billion 
for fiscal year 2016, $3.467 billion for fiscal year 2017, 
$5.239 billion for fiscal year 2018, $7.296 billion for fiscal 
year 2019, $9.610 billion for fiscal year 2020, $12.213 billion 
for fiscal year 2021, $15.141 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$18.435 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $27.909 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations and reforming the tax 
code by repealing certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. An amendment offered by Representatives Schrader, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, 
C rdenas, and Blumenauer to increase spending for early 
childhood programs.
    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, closing loopholes in the international 
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals, 
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business 
expense deductions.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority for 
Function 500 by $1.300 billion for fiscal year 2015, $3.246 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $5.784 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $7.581 for fiscal year 2018, $8.956 billion for fiscal 
year 2019, $9.880 billion for fiscal year 2020, $10.797 billion 
for fiscal year 2021, $10.258 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$9.348 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $7.607 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    Outlays for Function 500 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.130 billion for fiscal year 2015, $1.235 billion 
for fiscal year 2016, $3.110 billion for fiscal year 2017, 
$5.456 billion for fiscal year 2018, $7.360 billion for fiscal 
year 2019, $8.773 billion for fiscal year 2020, $9.787 billion 
for fiscal year 2021, $10.560 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$10.275 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $9.356 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment also increases mandatory budget authority for 
Function 550 by the following amounts: $0.500 billion for 
fiscal year 2015, $0.500 billion for fiscal year 2016, $1.000 
billion for fiscal year 2017, $1.000 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $1.500 billion for fiscal year 2019, $1.500 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $2.000 billion for fiscal year 2021, $2.000 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $2.500 billion for fiscal year 
2023, and $2.500 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    Outlays for Function 550 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.020 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.115 billion 
for fiscal year 2016, $0.400 billion for fiscal year 2017, 
$0.575 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.900 billion for fiscal 
year 2019, $1.075 billion for fiscal year 2020, $1.400 billion 
for fiscal year 2021, $1.575 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$1.900 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $2.075 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. An amendment offered by Representatives Doggett, 
McDermott, Jeffries, and Pocan relating to corporate 
compensation. The amendment would reform the tax code by 
repealing certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment would increase recommended levels of revenue 
for fiscal years 2015 through 2024 by the following amounts: 
$3.5 billion for fiscal year 2015, $6 billion for fiscal year 
2016, $6.1 billion for fiscal year 2017, $6.1 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $5.7 billion for fiscal year 2019, $5.3 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $4.9 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $4.6 billion for fiscal year 2022, $4.3 billion for 
fiscal year 2023, and $4 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would decrease the deficits for fiscal years 
2015 through 2024 by the following amounts: $3.5 billion for 
fiscal year 2015, $6 billion for fiscal year 2016, $6.1 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $6.1 billion for fiscal year 2018, $5.7 
billion for fiscal year 2019, $5.3 billion for fiscal year 
2020, $4.9 billion for fiscal year 2021, $4.6 billion for 
fiscal year 2022, $4.3 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $4 
billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. An amendment offered by Representatives Kildee, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Pocan, and Doggett relating to 
taxes for certain high income individuals.
    The amendment would increase the recommended levels of 
revenue for fiscal years 2015 through 2024 and decrease the 
deficit by the following amounts: $16 billion for fiscal year 
2015, $3 billion for fiscal year 2016, $9 billion for fiscal 
year 2017, $10.5 billion for fiscal year 2018, $11.5 billion 
for fiscal year 2019, $12.5 billion for fiscal year 2020, $13.5 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $15 billion for fiscal year 2022, 
$16.5 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $17.5 billion for 
fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Lujan Grisham, C rdenas, 
Blumenauer, Schrader, and Kildee relating to student loans.
    The amendment establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund 
for student loan refinancing.
    The amendment also increases mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 500. Mandatory budget authority would 
increase by the following amounts: $3.075 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $5.265 billion for fiscal year 2016, $5.505 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $5.72 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$5.895 billion for fiscal year 2019, $6.045 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $6.29 billion for fiscal year 2021, $6.44 billion 
for fiscal year 2022, $6.6 billion for fiscal year 2023, and 
$6.855 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    Outlays would increase by the following amounts: $1.92 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $3.95 billion for fiscal year 
2016, $4.725 billion for fiscal year 2017, $4.92 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $5.08 billion for fiscal year 2019, $5.22 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $5.445 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $5.58 billion for fiscal year 2022, $5.715 billion for 
fiscal year 2023, and $5.85 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes 
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on 
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by 
repealing certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
Pascrell, McDermott, Jeffries, Pocan, Huffman, and Blumenauer 
creating a point of order against the budget as it relates to 
repealing President's health care law.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van 
Hollen, Castor, McDermott, Pocan, and Blumenauer expressing a 
sense of the House rejecting an increase in taxes for the 
middle class.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. An amendment offered by Representatives C rdenas, Van 
Hollen, Moore, McDermott, Lee, and Pocan relating to juvenile 
justice programs.
    The amendment would reduce the savings in Function 920 to 
provide funding for juvenile justice programs. Budget authority 
would be reduced by $0.125 billion for fiscal year 2016. 
Outlays would be reduced by the following amounts: $0.063 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.035 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $0.014 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.005 billion for 
fiscal year 2019, and $0.005 billion for fiscal year 2020.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by various business tax reforms.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. An amendment offered by Representative Lee eliminating 
all funding for fiscal years 2016 through 2021 for Overseas 
Contingency Operations.
    The amendment would decrease budget authority for Function 
970 by $29.946 billion each year for the period of fiscal years 
2016 through 2021.
    The amendment would decrease outlays for Function 970 by 
the following amounts: $17.770 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$26.763 billion for fiscal year 2017, $28.799 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $29.404 billion for fiscal year 2019, $29.703 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $29.647 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $11.200 billion for fiscal year 2022, $4.402 billion for 
fiscal year 2023, and $1.827 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, and Blumenauer relating 
to Overseas Contingency Operations.
    The amendment would limit fiscal year 2015 allocations for 
Overseas Contingency Operations to the levels in the 
President's budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations.
    Chairman Ryan agreed to work with the minority on this 
amendment and to incorporate applicable language in the 
Committee report. Representative Van Hollen then withdrew his 
amendment.
    24. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, 
Pocan, Lujan Grisham, C rdenas, and Kildee relating to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 600 each by the following amounts: $1 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $4 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$4 billion for fiscal year 2017, $3 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $19 billion for fiscal year 2019, $19.8 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $20.7 billion for fiscal year 2021, $21.2 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $21.8 billion for fiscal year 
2023, and $22.5 billion for fiscal year 2024.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes 
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on 
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by 
repealing certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, and Pocan relating to Medicare.
    The amendment expresses a sense of the House declaring that 
benefits provided under the President's health care law for 
seniors, including the provisions related to Medicare Part D, 
should not be repealed.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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               YARMUTH       X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL              X               RYAN, TIM     X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT               X               MOORE         X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               McDERMOTT     X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD              X               LEE (CA)      X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               JEFFRIES      X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE                X               POCAN         X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES                X               LUJAN         X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               HUFFMAN       X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               CARDENAS      X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               BLUMENAUE     X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE              X               SCHRADER      X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL                X               DOGGETT       X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               KILDEE        X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI              X               .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER                X    .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS              X    .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY                 X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Dr. Price made a motion that the Committee adopt the 
aggregates, function totals, and other appropriate matter, with 
any amendments.
    The motion offered by Dr. Price was agreed to by voice 
vote.
    Chairman Ryan called up the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for fiscal year 2015 incorporating the aggregates, 
function totals, and other appropriate matter as previously 
agreed.
    27. Dr. 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 Dr. Price was agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 22 ayes and 16 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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                       YARMUTH              X
 (GA)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT       X                       PASCRELL             X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL      X                       RYAN, TIM            X
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT       X                       MOORE                X
 (CA)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)     X                       CASTOR
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC     X                       McDERMOTT            X
 K (CA)                                (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD      X                       LEE (CA)             X
 (OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK         X                       JEFFRIES             X
 (TN)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE        X                       POCAN                X
 (WI)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES        X                       LUJAN                X
 (TX)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA        X                       HUFFMAN              X
 (IN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL       X                       CARDENAS             X
 (GA)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN     X                       BLUMENAUE            X
 (TN)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE      X                       SCHRADER             X
 (MS)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL        X                       DOGGETT              X
 (VA)                                  (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER      X                       KILDEE               X
 (M0)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI      X                       .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER        X            .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)     X            .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS      X            .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY         X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. 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

                              ----------                              


    During consideration of the budget resolution, the 
Committee considered 25 amendments. Fifteen of those amendments 
proposed to increase revenues (taxes) and increase spending. 
Frequently, the same assumptions were made with respect to the 
revenue increases. In total, the revenue increases proposed in 
these 15 amendments amounted to $1.5 trillion to offset 
additional spending proposed in the amendments. In addition, 
the amendments the Committee defeated would have the effect of 
hampering one or more of the following goals in resolution: 
reducing spending, balancing the budget, advancing tax reform, 
reforming and strengthening federal programs, increasing 
defense spending and promoting economic growth. The rationale 
for rejecting some of these amendments follows.

        AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO INCREASED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland offered an 
amendment that would have increased non-defense discretionary 
spending. This spending was intended to be offset by a 
reduction in funding for the Overseas Contingency Operations 
(OCO) account. The Committee defeated this amendment because it 
was a prime example of ``stimulus economics''--the belief that 
more borrowing and spending (pitched as ``investment'') will 
somehow lead to greater prosperity. After four successive years 
of trillion-dollar deficits, fueled by a borrow-and-spend 
economic philosophy, and roughly $6.6 trillion in new debt 
since the President took office, the economy and the job market 
have not taken off as promised. Furthermore, the resources to 
pay for this amendment's expansion in government spending were 
purported to come from an account that contains no funds. As 
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted on several 
occasions, ``There are no funds in the Treasury set aside'' for 
OCO. Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey submitted into 
the record a letter from CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf that 
discusses in some detail the problems with capping OCO spending 
as an offset. Therefore, this amendment would have simply led 
to an increase in government spending and larger deficits.

                 AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO DEPARTMENT OF
                       VETERANS AFFAIRS SPENDING

    Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky offered an 
amendment that would increase veterans-related discretionary 
and mandatory spending, including creating a Veterans Job 
Corps, and called for making all discretionary programs at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs subject to advance 
appropriations. The amendment was defeated because the budget 
resolution already fully funds the President's fiscal year 2015 
discretionary request, makes no cuts to veterans' benefits, and 
exceeds the President's discretionary budget request by $9 
billion over the budget window. Further, this budget matches 
the President's advance appropriation request for veteran 
medical care for fiscal year 2016. In regards to the new 
mandatory Job Corps proposal, Republicans were concerned about 
the lack of details regarding the proposal, which the Committee 
on Veterans Affairs did not recommend including in the budget 
due to similar concerns. For these reasons, the Committee 
defeated this amendment.

               AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO INCREASING REVENUE
                       TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

    Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon offered an 
amendment creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide 
for increased spending on surface-transportation programs and 
higher receipts for the Highway Trust Fund. The amendment would 
allow the reauthorization of surface-transportation programs 
for a period of six years, covering fiscal years 2015--2020, to 
be offset by higher revenues. The Committee defeated this 
amendment. The budget resolution already includes a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for the reauthorization of surface-
transportation programs (Sec. 309). Moreover, the budget 
resolution does not lock the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee into the narrow parameters of this amendment but 
instead allows for a surface-transportation reauthorization 
covering any length of time, provided that it does not increase 
the deficit. This approach was taken by the 2013 House budget, 
which paved the way for the current surface-transportation 
authorization (MAP-21).

           AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS

    Representative Tony Cardenas of California offered an 
amendment to provide additional spending for juvenile justice 
programs. This spending increase would be offset by increases 
in taxes on businesses. The Committee defeated this amendment. 
The budget resolution assumes no cuts to juvenile justice 
programs. It does, however, call for consolidating and 
streamlining Department of Justice (DOJ) grants to eliminate 
unnecessary overlap and duplication. Grantees such as juvenile 
justice programs will benefit from more accountable, less 
fragmented DOJ grant administration. Moreover, the budget 
resolution calls for comprehensive, revenue-neutral tax reform. 
Tax policy changes of this sort should be considered in the 
context of comprehensive, revenue-neutral tax reform.

                AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE MINIMUM WAGE

    Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin offered an amendment 
calling for an increase in the minimum wage. The Committee 
defeated this amendment because of concerns about the effects 
the policy would have on employment. According to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this policy would 
eliminate 500,000 jobs. Furthermore, the Washington Post has 
reported that the Obama administration worried that it would 
``spark * * * negative effects on employment.'' Finally, in a 
literature survey, independent economists David Neumark and 
William Wascher found that most research found a negative 
effect on employment due to increases in the minimum wage.

                   AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO EMERGENCY
                       UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

    Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York offered an 
amendment calling for an extension of Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation. The Committee defeated this amendment because it 
would increase taxes by over $50 billion in taxes over the next 
decade. Such selective tax increases would make comprehensive 
tax reform harder to accomplish--the purpose of which is to 
eliminate loopholes and broaden the base so that rates may be 
lowered to stimulate economic growth. The proposed policy could 
lead to ``emergency and temporary'' unemployment expansions 
becoming permanent and also ignores growing evidence that 
extended unemployment insurance may inhibit economic growth and 
increase the unemployment rate.

                    AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO POVERTY

    Representative Barbara Lee of California offered an 
amendment calling for a national strategy to eliminate poverty. 
The amendment, as drafted, proposed a number of 
counterproductive policies, policies that would have hurt 
economic growth and eliminated jobs. Poverty is a serious 
problem that needs to be addressed. During the mark-up the 
majority worked to find agreement on an amendment with 
Representative Lee. Unfortunately, she rejected alternate 
language suggested by the majority that she had previously 
authored and that had passed the House of Representatives in 
2008. The Committee defeated this amendment.

              AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO NUTRITION ASSISTANCE

    Representative Gwen Moore of Wisconsin offered an amendment 
calling for an increase in spending of $137 billion for food 
stamps. The Committee defeated this amendment. The food-stamp 
program has increased nearly threefold over the past decade, 
from $29 billion in 2004, to $83 billion in 2013. While much of 
this increase is due to the recent recession, the SNAP program 
has also seen a number of expansions in the program, most 
notably categorical eligibility--and the Department of 
Agriculture has concluded that SNAP enrollment has become 
disconnected from changes in the real economy. For these 
reasons, the Committee defeated this amendment.

              AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE TAX TREATMENT OF
                         EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

    Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas offered an amendment 
that would limit the dollar amount of each employee's salary a 
publicly-traded company can deduct as a business expense. 
Currently, the deduction cap applies only to covered employees, 
namely the CEO and other three highest-paid executive officers, 
excluding the chief financial officer. Additionally, under 
current law performance-based and commission-based pay do not 
count towards the cap.
    The Committee defeated this amendment. The Committee 
supports comprehensive tax reform, including reforms that would 
address the corporate tax code. The Tax Foundation estimates 
that our current statutory corporate income-tax rate of 35 
percent is the highest in the industrialized world, which puts 
American businesses at a disadvantage and discourages job 
creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. However, this 
amendment does not provide the comprehensive tax reform this 
country needs. Rather, it would further complicate the code to 
raise taxes on one select group of individuals by about $50 
billion over ten years. The budget resolution calls for pro-
growth tax reform that would address the real problems with our 
tax code--namely the unnecessary complexity and high rates that 
threaten economic growth. For these reasons, the Committee 
defeated this amendment.

        AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

    Representative Tony Cardenas of California offered an 
amendment to increase revenue and Function 920 levels to 
reflect adoption of H.R. 15, a bill significantly similar to 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary-reported version of S. 
744, a comprehensive immigration-reform bill.
    The Committee defeated this amendment. The Committee 
rejected the sweeping changes made in H.R. 15 and its Senate 
companion, an over one-thousand-page bill. Rather, the 
Committee advocates for a step-by-step process that begins with 
border security and interior enforcement. The House committees 
of jurisdiction have been and continue working to reform our 
broken immigration system. For those reasons, the Committee did 
not support the inclusion of H.R. 15 in this budget resolution.

                    AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO MEDICAID

    Representative Bill Pascrell of New Jersey offered an 
amendment to increase Medicaid funding. The amendment is offset 
with a variety of tax increases.
    The Committee defeated this amendment. This budget proposes 
to spend $3.5 trillion over the next decade on Medicaid and 
Other Health programs. It increases spending on the program 
every year from fiscal year 2016 onward. According to CBO, 
Medicaid is growing at an average annual rate of 9 percent over 
the next five years. This budget proposes simply to slow the 
growth in spending and give states more flexibility so they can 
design the programs around their people's needs. Spending 
growth at that rate is simply unsustainable. But the problem 
with Medicaid isn't just that it spends too much. It's also not 
giving patients the access to health care that they need. 
Moreover, the President's health-care law forces millions of 
Americans into this broken system. This budget repeals those 
expansions, empowers states with the flexibility and resources 
to design innovative programs that are more responsive to their 
citizens' needs than a one-size-fits-all federal program, and 
creates the space to replace the President's health care law 
with true, patient-centered reforms that will better serve 
Medicaid patients. For these reasons, the Committee did not 
agree to this amendment.

                    AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO MEDICARE

    Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico offered 
an amendment to increase Medicaid funding and to include in the 
Chairman's Mark a Sense of the House praising the effects of 
the President's health-care law on Medicare and opposing 
premium support.
    The Committee defeated this amendment. Because of rising 
health costs and demographic changes, CBO projects that the 
Medicare program will be bankrupt in 2026. The status quo is 
unacceptable. The President's health-care law only made the 
problem worse. By raiding Medicare to pay for a new 
entitlement, it ensured that 40 percent of Medicare providers 
will go out of business according to the Medicare Trustees.
    In contrast, the Medicare reforms contained in the budget 
save and strengthen the Medicare guarantee. The Republican 
budget slows Medicare spending--but it does so by transitioning 
to a new Medicare program for future generations. Those in and 
near retirement have the same program as they have today, with 
no changes to the current benefit structure. The traditional 
fee-for-service program would permanently remain an option--for 
all seniors, current and future--in the Republican budget. 
Future seniors would choose from a list of Medicare-approved 
private plans competing with the fee-for-service program so 
seniors have a range of plans, regardless of health status or 
pre-existing conditions. High-income seniors get less support; 
low-income seniors get more. And new evidence from the 
Congressional Budget Office shows that premium-support-style 
reforms can both reduce costs to seniors and the federal 
government. The real threat to the Medicare guarantee is the 
status quo. And doing nothing--or worse, trying to ration 
care--represents the greatest threat to seniors' health 
security. For these reasons, the Committee defeated this 
amendment.

          AN AMENDMENT TO PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC JOBS AND PROVIDE
              A NATIONAL INVESTMENT IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

    Representative Kathy Castor of Florida offered an amendment 
to increase Function 550 mandatory budget authority by $28.7 
billion and mandatory outlays by $25.2 billion. It assumes this 
additional funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 
The amendment offsets the new spending by increasing taxes.
    The Committee defeated this amendment. The Chairman's Mark 
assumes no cuts to NIH and reflects strong support for NIH's 
core mission to invest in basic biomedical research as a key 
investment to uncover new knowledge that can lead to better 
health and disease cures for everyone. However, it is 
imperative taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Recent news 
reports that taxpayer funds entrusted to the National 
Institutes of Health are being spent to support a variety of 
questionable projects, including grants examining ``Public 
Health Education and Campaigns in China'' and a study asserting 
a link between the Tea Party and the tobacco industry. Every 
agency that supports public health and research, including HHS, 
collectively must work to ensure all these resources are spent 
in the most effective manner to avoid duplication and waste and 
to coordinate the activity toward collective public-health or 
research goals and objectives. For these reasons, the Committee 
defeated this amendment.

                  AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO PELL GRANTS

    Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio offered an amendment to 
increase spending on the Pell grant program with the costs 
offset with a variety of taxes increases. The Committee 
defeated this amendment.
    Pell Grants are a critical source of financial aid that has 
helped increase access to higher education for millions of low-
income students. But reckless spending hikes have jeopardized 
the program's ability to keep its promises. Program costs have 
skyrocketed since fiscal year 2008, and the program faces a big 
financial shortfall in fiscal year 2016. If left unaddressed, 
it could cause severe cuts to eligibility and/or award amounts. 
While this amendment refuses to make the tough decisions needed 
to put Pell Grants on a sustainable path, the Chairman's mark 
puts the program on a sustainable path with a number of 
commonsense reforms. It takes Pell off autopilot while 
maintaining the current maximum award of $5,730 for each year 
of the next decade. Moreover, it rolls back several recent 
expansions of the program to ensure that Pell stays focused on 
those in most need and does not spur higher tuition.

      AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS IN MEDICAID

    Representative Jim McDermott of Washington offered an 
amendment increasing spending for Medicaid. The amendment would 
increase Medicaid payments for those primary providers who 
treat Medicaid patients only in those states that have expanded 
their Medicaid programs according to the regulations under the 
President's health-care law. Those primary-care providers who 
treat Medicaid patients in states that have not expanded their 
Medicaid payments would not benefit from this provision. 
Moreover, the amendment does not address the access problems 
that enrollees currently face. The budget resolution would 
instead put states in charge of their own Medicaid program so 
they can design solutions that best meet the unique needs of 
their own constituents. The committee defeated the amendment.

              AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
                       DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

    Representative Jared Huffman of California offered an 
amendment to increase spending to fund the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at 40 percent of the average 
per pupil expenditure for special education, the maximum amount 
authorized under the law. It offsets the cost of this spending 
by raising taxes in a variety of ways. The Committee defeated 
this amendment.
    The Chairman's mark assumes no reductions to IDEA, and it 
reflects strong support for IDEA's core mission to support the 
education of children with disabilities. IDEA is funded 
annually through the appropriations process. The Committee 
believes funding for this critical program should remain 
subject to annual review, providing the chance for Congress to 
make changes and ensure priorities are being met. The 
Appropriations Committee will have the opportunity to examine 
IDEA spending and, within the parameters set by this budget, 
set appropriate funding levels. For these reasons, the 
Committee defeated this amendment.

          AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

    Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon offered an amendment 
to increase funding for early childhood programs. It offsets 
the costs of this increased spending by raising taxes in a 
variety of ways. The Committee defeated this amendment.
    The federal government currently supports 45 different 
programs costing at least $14.2 billion annually with the 
purpose of supporting or providing early childhood care and 
education programs for children under the age of five. Yet, in 
everything, including education, the measure of success should 
not be the amount of taxpayer money spent. It must be assessed 
in how effectively the money is spent and the outcomes of the 
particular program. One of the largest early childhood 
education programs is Head Start, a nearly $9 billion per year 
program that has been shown to provide little to no benefit for 
cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of 
its participants. This maze of programs and lack of sustained 
results are a disservice to vulnerable children, and it is 
irresponsible to add yet another layer of spending before these 
existing programs are fixed. For these reasons, the Committee 
did not support inclusion of this amendment in the Chairman's 
Mark.

                 AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO STUDENT LOANS

    Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin offered an amendment 
to increase spending on student loans. The amendment offsets 
these costs by raising taxes in a variety of ways. The 
Committee defeated this amendment.
    The Committee agrees student debt is a growing problem. In 
fact, the Chairman's Mark contains a policy statement 
expressing its concern at the rapid rate of tuition growth. 
However, the best solution to alleviating the burden of student 
debt is to increase the return to education by restoring strong 
economic growth. This budget promotes pro-growth policies, 
policies that un- and under-employed recent college graduates 
need. Moreover, the federal government already provides a 
variety of loan-repayment plans to help students manage their 
debt. This budget adopts a modest reform proposed by the 
President's Fiscal Commission that would require undergraduate 
students to assume more responsibility for the costs of their 
loans. It also rolls back expansions to the income-based 
repayment program that many suggest are disproportionately 
benefiting graduate and professional students. This budget's 
reforms to student financial aid will ensure critical programs 
are sustained and available to the people who need them most, 
rather than fueling tuition inflation. For these reasons, the 
Committee defeated this amendment.

           AN AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE ACCOUNTING OF REPEAL
                       OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

    Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland offered an 
amendment creating a point of order against future legislation 
that subsequently repeals portions of the President's health-
care law. The underlying resolution calls for the full repeal 
of the health law. It repeals more than $2 trillion in new 
spending under the President's health-care law. It repeals over 
a trillion in tax increases as part of comprehensive, revenue-
neutral tax reform. It ends the health law's raid on Medicare 
and instead keeps those savings with in the Medicare program 
while also creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund to replace 
those savings. The amendment would provide a roadblock to 
addressing the fundamental flaws with the President's 
healthcare law. For these reasons, the committee defeated the 
amendment.

                 AN AMENDMENT TO HELP WITH PRESCRIPTION
                         DRUG COSTS FOR SENIORS

    Representative Jim McDermott of Washington offered an 
amendment stating the sense of the House that the President's 
health-care law included provisions that reduced prescription-
drug costs for seniors who fall in the ``donut hole'' in the 
Part D program. The President's health-care law is flawed and 
needs to be repealed and replaced. In this instance, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office, the provisions in the 
President's health-care law that changed the structure of the 
Part D program would have the effect of increasing 
prescription-drug costs for all seniors. For these reasons, the 
committee defeated this amendment.

                AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO TAX PREFERENCES
                         FOR CERTAIN TAXPAYERS

    Representative Dan Kildee of Michigan offered an amendment 
that would have reduced or eliminated certain tax preferences 
for those with adjusted gross income (AGI) in excess of $1 
million annually. The Committee defeated this amendment as the 
measure would harm the economy and do little to reduce the 
deficit. It may be politically expedient to go after certain 
groups deemed unpopular, but the majority of non-corporate 
small businesses pay taxes under the individual income-tax 
system. Therefore, these individual tax hike proposals end up 
impacting the successful small business that are the engines of 
job creation in our economy. Small businesses generate 60 to 80 
percent of net new jobs annually and employ about half of all 
private-sector employees, according to the Small Business 
Administration. For these reasons, the Committee defeated this 
amendment.

               AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE DISTRIBUTIONAL
                          IMPACT OF TAX REFORM

    Representative Bill Pascrell of New Jersey offered an 
amendment expressing the sense of the House that the budget 
should not allow taxes to be raised on the middle class. The 
Committee defeated this amendment. This budget resolution does 
not call for tax increases on anyone, whatever their income 
level. The budget resolution calls for fundamental tax reform 
that broadens the tax base and lowers tax rates. The tax code 
is littered with special credits, deductions and loopholes, 
which sum to over $1 trillion annually and are 
disproportionately used by upper-income individuals. The budget 
resolution advocates cleaning out these loopholes so that tax 
rates can be lowered for all taxpayers. This amendment would 
hamper the tax-reform process by blocking the examination of 
the entire universe of tax preferences. In addition, section 
602 includes a policy statement, calling for pro-growth tax 
reform that would make the code simpler and fairer. For these 
reasons, the Committee defeated this amendment.
       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 two-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

                              ----------                              


             2015 Republican Budget Slows Economic Growth,
         Widens Income Inequality, and Dims the American Dream

    Our budgets are a reflection of our vision for America. 
They reveal our priorities. They demonstrate what we value and 
what we don't. They are about fundamental choices for the 
future direction of our nation.
    The President has presented a budget for fiscal year 2015 
that will help boost job growth, sharpen America's competitive 
edge, and expand opportunity. The Republican budget before us 
does exactly the opposite. Of all the reckless budgets our 
Republican colleagues have introduced, this one is the worst 
for America. Many will argue that this budget should not be 
taken seriously because it will go nowhere in the Senate. But 
the public should take it very seriously, because it tells 
people exactly what Republicans in Congress would do if they 
had the power to impose their will on the country.
    At its core, this budget rigs the rules for wealthy special 
interests at the expense of everyone else. It cuts the tax 
rates for multi-millionaires by one-third while it guts vital 
investments in our children's futures, squeezes the middle 
class, and violates important commitments to our seniors.
    The Republican budget is a boon to our economic 
competitors, providing perverse tax incentives to ship American 
jobs overseas while shortchanging investments in jobs here at 
home. It makes historically reckless cuts in areas that help 
power our economy--education, scientific research, innovation, 
advanced manufacturing, and diverse energy sources. All told, 
it cuts non-defense discretionary spending by a staggering $791 
billion below the already unsustainable sequester level. That 
takes those investments to almost 40 percent lower as a share 
of the economy than at any time in the last 50 years.
    At a time when we should be modernizing our infrastructure, 
this budget slashes the transportation budget by a whopping $52 
billion this year alone, stopping new projects and throwing 
construction workers off their jobs. It will condemn the United 
States to a pot-holed road of economic decline. And it rejects 
one measure that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
could immediately unleash more economic activity and grow our 
economy--comprehensive immigration reform.
    The saddest part of this budget is that is casts a dark 
shadow over the American Dream--it violates the fundamental 
promise that every hard-working American should have a fair 
shot at success. Our kids' education is vital to a bright 
future for all of us. At a time when we should be investing 
more in education, the Republican budget's unallocated cut 
would proportionately slash funding for education and job 
training by over $145 billion. According to the 
Administration's estimates, this cut to education funding would 
mean that Title I, which helps ensure that students can meet 
challenging academic standards, would be unable to support the 
equivalent of about 8,000 schools, potentially resulting in 
29,000 fewer teachers and their aides. Special education would 
take a big hit.
    After cutting appropriations available for education by 
$145 billion, the Republican budget goes further and cuts 
current policy support for higher education by another $205 
billion. Students who want to go to college will have a tough 
time unless they are born into well-to-do families. This budget 
eliminates the one guaranteed source of Pell Grants, starts 
charging students interest on their loans while in college, 
discontinues the college tuition tax credits, and reverses new 
efforts to relieve the debt burden on many students.
    Instead of addressing the lack of upward mobility, rung by 
rung, this budget knocks steps off the ladder of opportunity. 
If you are to the manor born, cheers. For everyone else, this 
budget is a punch in the gut.
    Take seniors for our next example. Those on Medicare will 
immediately pay more for diagnostic screenings and other 
preventative health services. Those with high prescription drug 
costs will see the donut hole re-opened and prices will 
skyrocket--seniors with high drug costs will pay nearly $1,200 
more per year. Millions of seniors in nursing homes will be 
especially hurt by the reckless cuts to Medicaid. Over two-
thirds of the base Medicaid program supports the elderly and 
the disabled and this budget slashes the Medicaid budget in its 
last year by a full 25 percent--in addition to repealing the 
Affordable Care Act expansion of the program. At the same time, 
the budget ends the current Medicare guarantee, forcing seniors 
who stay in fee-for-service care to face large premium 
increases. On top of all this, the Republican budget keeps the 
Medicare sequester cut on health providers in place to the tune 
of $140 billion.
    Middle class families are also hit, and will see their tax 
burden increase to finance windfall tax breaks for the very 
rich. It ignores the reality exemplified by Ways and Means 
Chairman Camp's tax reform plan that demonstrates that we 
cannot have a revenue-neutral plan that lowers the top tax rate 
to 25 percent without raising rates for those making less. 
While Chairman Camp's bill has a top rate of 35 percent, this 
budget calls for a top rate for millionaires of 25 percent. 
Financing this tax break for the wealthy will mean an average 
tax increase of $2,000 for middle class families with children.
    This budget reserves perhaps its cruelest blow to those 
seeking to climb out of poverty and into the middle class. It 
reveals that Republicans' post-election talk about seriously 
addressing poverty issues was just that--talk. During the last 
election, Governor Romney stated that he wasn't focused on 
helping the 47 percent of struggling Americans, and this 
Republican budget sets out to prove it. It absolutely decimates 
safety net programs--like SNAP and Medicaid--designed to stop 
people from falling into deep poverty.
    Just last year, after much debate, Congress reduced the 
Republican Farm Bill's cut to food and nutrition support from 
$40 billion to $8 billion. But this budget would now slash $137 
billion, meaning millions of kids will be hungrier. It is 
premised on the false and pernicious notion that providing 
struggling families with minimal food and nutrition support 
saps their will to work. This is apparently the new Republican 
jobs plan--just take away food and nutrition support, and jobs 
will sprout up and people will flock to work. Give children 
dignity by taking away school lunch programs. Slash Medicaid 
because poor people are just lolling around in Medicaid 
hammocks. It is no wonder that faith groups have criticized 
past Republican budgets as failing to meet basic moral 
standards.
    Our Republican colleagues say these bitter austerity 
measures are needed to reduce the deficit. But if that is 
really their paramount concern, why do they refuse to close a 
single special interest tax break to reduce the deficit? 
Republicans say they do not want to pass on debts to future 
generations, but will not end a single break for the Koch 
brothers and other special interests. Instead, they place all 
the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class, kids, 
seniors, and hard-working Americans who make their living 
earning wages rather than on profits on tax-preferred hedge 
funds and stock options.
    Despite these austerity measures, the truth is that this 
budget does not balance. It is a total fraud for Republicans to 
claim that this budget balances in ten years at the same time 
they have voted over 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
(ACA). Why? Because this budget includes all of the ACA's 
Medicare savings and revenue, which together amount to about $2 
trillion. Without these Obamacare provisions, the Republican 
budget falls hundreds of billions of dollars short of balance 
in year ten. The truth is that Republicans do not repeal the 
entire Affordable Care Act--just all the benefits of the law, 
like the tax credits that make insurance more affordable and 
the provisions that allow younger people to stay on their 
parents policies until age 26. The Republicans keep all the ACA 
budget savings. They cannot have it both ways: either they 
support all the revenue and savings in the ACA or their budget 
does not come close to balancing.
    The Republican budget is a deeply pessimistic vision of 
America. It will result in slower economic growth and widening 
income inequality. It will further empower entrenched special 
interests while dimming the American Dream for everyone else. 
We can do so much better, and this is a debate we should take 
to the country.

                                          Chris Van Hollen.
                                           John A. Yarmuth.
                                         Bill Pascrell, Jr.
                                                  Tim Ryan.
                                                Gwen Moore.
                                              Kathy Castor.
                                             Jim McDermott.
                                               Barbara Lee.
                                        Hakeem S. Jeffries.
                                                Mark Pocan.
                                    Michelle Lujan Grisham.
                                             Jared Huffman.
                                             Tony Cardenas.
                                           Earl Blumenauer.
                                             Kurt Schrader.
                                             Lloyd Doggett.
                                             Daniel Kildee.
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 96

  Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
  year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
                        years 2016 through 2024.

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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

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

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

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

                 TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                 TITLE II--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Sec. 201. Long-term budgeting.

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

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

                 TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 401. Direct spending.

                       TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

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

                       TITLE VI--POLICY STATEMENTS

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

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

    The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
fiscal years 2015 through 2024:
            (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this concurrent resolution:
                    (A) The recommended levels of Federal 
                revenues are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2015: $2,533,841,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2016: $2,676,038,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $2,789,423,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $2,890,308,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $3,014,685,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $3,148,637,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $3,294,650,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $3,456,346,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $3,626,518,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $3,807,452,000,000.
                    (B) The amounts by which the aggregate 
                levels of Federal revenues should be changed 
                are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2015: $0.
    Fiscal year 2016: $0.
    Fiscal year 2017: $0.
    Fiscal year 2018: $0.
    Fiscal year 2019: $0.
    Fiscal year 2020: $0.
    Fiscal year 2021: $0.
    Fiscal year 2022: $0.
    Fiscal year 2023: $0.
    Fiscal year 2024: $0.
            (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the 
        appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as 
        follows:
    Fiscal year 2015: $2,842,226,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2016: $2,858,059,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $2,957,321,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $3,059,410,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $3,210,987,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $3,360,435,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $3,460,524,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $3,587,380,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $3,660,151,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $3,706,695,000,000.
            (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the 
        appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
        follows:
    Fiscal year 2015: $2,920,026,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2016: $2,889,484,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $2,949,261,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $3,034,773,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $3,185,472,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $3,320,927,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $3,433,392,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $3,577,963,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $3,632,642,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $3,676,374,000,000.
            (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the amounts 
        of the deficits (on-budget) are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2015: -$386,186,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2016: -$213,446,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: -$159,838,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: -$144,466,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: -$170,787,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: -$172,290,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: -$138,741,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: -$121,617,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: -$6,124,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $131,078,000,000.
            (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels 
        of the public debt are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2015: $18,304,357,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2016: $18,627,533,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $19,172,590,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $19,411,553,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $19,773,917,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $20,227,349,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $20,449,374,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $20,822,448,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $20,981,807,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $21,089,365,000,000.
            (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate 
        levels of debt held by the public are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2015: $13,213,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2016: $13,419,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $13,800,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $13,860,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $14,080,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $14,427,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $14,579,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $14,940,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $15,080,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $15,176,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

    The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
            (1) National Defense (050):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $528,927,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $566,503,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $573,792,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $573,064,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $597,895,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $584,252,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $611,146,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $593,795,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $624,416,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $611,902,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $638,697,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $626,175,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $653,001,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $640,499,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $669,967,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $661,181,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $687,393,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $672,922,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $706,218,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $685,796,000,000.
            (2) International Affairs (150):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,695,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,029,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $39,734,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $37,976,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,642,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,229,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $41,589,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,822,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $42,513,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,553,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $43,497,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,114,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,004,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,701,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $45,271,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $41,749,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $46,287,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $42,667,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $47,349,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $43,624,000,000.
            (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $27,941,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $27,927,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $28,493,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $28,240,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,113,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $28,750,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,764,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $29,350,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $30,413,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $29,938,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,096,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $30,589,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,782,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $31,174,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $32,493,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $31,870,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,210,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $32,576,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,955,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $33,304,000,000.
            (4) Energy (270):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $4,228,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $5,751,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $3,820,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $3,416,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $2,048,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,762,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,192,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,788,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,278,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,851,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,384,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$16,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$346,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$1,018,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,283,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$1,914,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$2,188,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$6,113,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$6,699,000,000.
            (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $34,289,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,311,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $34,491,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $37,747,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,077,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $36,204,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,047,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $33,316,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $36,859,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $36,779,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,169,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $37,877,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $36,428,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $36,379,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,979,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,749,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $39,927,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,733,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,592,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,752,000,000.
            (6) Agriculture (350):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,042,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,556,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $22,506,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,313,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $20,527,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,992,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $18,506,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,883,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $18,654,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,970,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,008,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $18,440,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,263,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $18,763,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,764,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,249,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $20,017,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,516,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $20,635,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $20,131,000,000.
            (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$3,239,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$14,762,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$4,518,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$18,633,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$7,672,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$23,217,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$7,385,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$24,136,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$6,658,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$28,258,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$3,937,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$26,052,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$4,034,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$20,982,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$4,794,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$23,197,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$5,073,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$24,597,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$5,118,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$25,793,000,000.
            (8) Transportation (400):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $34,713,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $80,659,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $68,529,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $69,907,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $74,454,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $75,199,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $75,978,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $77,558,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $77,501,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $78,163,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $78,373,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $79,056,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $79,369,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $80,231,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $80,529,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $81,409,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $81,829,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $82,872,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $83,353,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $84,024,000,000.
            (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $14,556,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,608,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,303,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $21,425,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,269,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,292,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,414,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $17,840,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,387,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $16,841,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,283,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $16,008,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,421,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $14,679,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,658,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,408,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $15,954,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,490,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $16,302,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,910,000,000.
            (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
        Services (500):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $73,908,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $91,759,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $82,372,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $84,521,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $86,699,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $87,137,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $89,536,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $89,808,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $85,278,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $86,074,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $86,555,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $87,130,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $87,749,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $88,403,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $89,167,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $89,839,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $90,661,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $91,360,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $92,094,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $92,926,000,000.
            (11) Health (550):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $419,799,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $416,573,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $367,238,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $370,205,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $377,752,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $375,839,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $376,732,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $377,346,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $390,437,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $390,404,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $415,814,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $405,309,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $419,124,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $418,298,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $433,512,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $432,149,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $449,181,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $447,991,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $472,300,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $471,312,000,000.
            (12) Medicare (570):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $519,196,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $519,407,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $558,895,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $558,964,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $570,144,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $570,341,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $590,695,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $591,117,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $651,579,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $651,878,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $692,307,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $692,644,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $737,455,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $738,042,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $815,257,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $817,195,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $836,296,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $837,883,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $859,011,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $866,262,000,000.
            (13) Income Security (600):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $505,729,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $505,032,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $487,645,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $490,122,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $489,766,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $487,105,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $492,129,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $484,280,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $493,996,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $490,014,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $512,717,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $508,689,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $520,016,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $515,475,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $529,438,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $529,111,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $530,839,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $525,624,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $525,701,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $515,225,000,000.
            (14) Social Security (650):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,442,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $31,517,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $34,245,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $34,283,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $37,133,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $37,133,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,138,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,138,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $43,383,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $43,383,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $46,747,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,747,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $50,255,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $50,255,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $53,941,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $53,941,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $57,800,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $57,800,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $58,441,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
            (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $153,027,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $152,978,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $164,961,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $164,807,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $163,858,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $163,269,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $162,388,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $161,646,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $174,305,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $173,499,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $179,269,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $178,380,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $183,571,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $182,676,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $195,680,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $194,719,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $192,458,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $191,491,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $189,292,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $188,262,000,000.
            (16) Administration of Justice (750):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $54,011,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $54,250,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $56,932,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $56,298,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $56,770,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $58,319,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $58,405,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $59,095,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $60,239,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $60,501,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $62,146,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $61,649,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $64,263,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $63,734,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $66,967,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $66,411,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $69,031,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $68,455,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $71,166,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $70,568,000,000.
            (17) General Government (800):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,710,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,618,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,064,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,826,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $21,587,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $21,674,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,269,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $22,973,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $24,040,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,582,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $24,759,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,331,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $25,556,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,139,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $26,353,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,939,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $27,097,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $26,691,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $27,912,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $27,491,000,000.
            (18) Net Interest (900):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $365,987,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $365,987,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $416,238,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $416,238,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $482,228,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $482,228,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $553,820,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $553,820,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $611,852,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $611,852,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $659,310,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $659,310,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $693,159,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $693,159,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $723,805,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $723,805,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $751,215,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $751,215,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $770,124,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $770,124,000,000.
            (19) Allowances (920):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$36,364,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$22,676,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$47,825,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$36,706,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$51,416,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$45,014,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$54,566,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$49,571,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$56,672,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$53,542,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$61,825,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$58,102,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$64,552,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$61,040,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$66,871,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$63,946,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$68,992,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$66,322,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$65,972,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$64,338,000,000.
            (20) Government-wide savings (930):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $25,904,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $20,052,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$14,151,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,701,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$30,525,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$17,482,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$38,302,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$27,789,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$46,446,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$35,547,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$55,559,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$44,608,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$63,060,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$53,317,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$75,189,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$64,007,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$87,334,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$75,209,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$117,125,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$96,353,000,000.
            (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$78,632,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$78,632,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$83,652,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$83,652,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$83,974,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$83,974,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$84,602,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$84,602,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$91,824,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$91,824,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$93,787,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$93,787,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$98,176,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$98,176,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$101,529,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$101,529,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$105,731,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$105,731,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        -$113,422,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$113,422,000,000.
            (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
        Terrorism (970):
                    Fiscal year 2015:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $85,357,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $52,580,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,946,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $37,823,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,946,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $32,585,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,946,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $30,893,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,946,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $31,032,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,946,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $29,647,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,946,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $29,647,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $0.
                            (B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $0.
                            (B) Outlays, $4,402,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $0.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,827,000,000.

                 TITLE II--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

SEC. 201. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

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

                        TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 401. DIRECT SPENDING.

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

                      TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

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

SEC. 502. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

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

SEC. 505. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

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

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

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

SEC. 507. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 510. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

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

                      TITLE VI--POLICY STATEMENTS

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

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

SEC. 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) A world-class tax system should be simple, 
        fair, and promote (rather than impede) economic growth. 
        The United States tax code fails on all three counts - 
        it is notoriously complex, patently unfair, and highly 
        inefficient. The tax code's complexity distorts 
        decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to 
        slower economic growth, lower wages, and less job 
        creation.
            (2) Over the past decade alone, there have been 
        more than 4,400 changes to the tax code, more than one 
        per day. Many of the major changes over the years have 
        involved carving out special preferences, exclusions, 
        or deductions for various activities or groups. These 
        loopholes add up to more than $1 trillion per year and 
        make the code unfair, inefficient, and highly complex.
            (3) In addition, these tax preferences are 
        disproportionately used by upper-income individuals.
            (4) The large amount of tax preferences that 
        pervade the code end up narrowing the tax base. A 
        narrow tax base, in turn, requires much higher tax 
        rates to raise a given amount of revenue.
            (5) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up 
        spending $160 billion and roughly 6 billion hours a 
        year complying with the tax code - a waste of time and 
        resources that could be used in more productive 
        activities.
            (6) Standard economic theory shows that high 
        marginal tax rates dampen the incentives to work, save, 
        and invest, which reduces economic output and job 
        creation. Lower economic output, in turn, mutes the 
        intended revenue gain from higher marginal tax rates.
            (7) Roughly half of United States active business 
        income and half of private sector employment are 
        derived from business entities (such as partnerships, S 
        corporations, and sole proprietorships) that are taxed 
        on a ``pass-through'' basis, meaning the income flows 
        through to the tax returns of the individual owners and 
        is taxed at the individual rate structure rather than 
        at the corporate rate. Small businesses, in particular, 
        tend to choose this form for Federal tax purposes, and 
        the top Federal rate on such small business income 
        reaches 44.6 percent. For these reasons, sound economic 
        policy requires lowering marginal rates on these pass-
        through entities.
            (8) The United States corporate income tax rate 
        (including Federal, State, and local taxes) sums to 
        just over 39 percent, the highest rate in the 
        industrialized world. Tax rates this high suppress 
        wages and discourage investment and job creation, 
        distort business activity, and put American businesses 
        at a competitive disadvantage with foreign competitors.
            (9) By deterring potential investment, the United 
        States corporate tax restrains economic growth and job 
        creation. The United States tax rate differential with 
        other countries also fosters a variety of complicated 
        multinational corporate behaviors intended to avoid the 
        tax, which have the effect of moving the tax base 
        offshore, destroying American jobs, and decreasing 
        corporate revenue.
            (10) The ``worldwide'' structure of United States 
        international taxation essentially taxes earnings of 
        United States firms twice, putting them at a 
        significant competitive disadvantage with competitors 
        with more competitive international tax systems.
            (11) Reforming the United States tax code to a more 
        competitive international system would boost the 
        competitiveness of United States companies operating 
        abroad and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
            (12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers 
        through lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and 
        on investors in diminished returns.
            (13) Revenues have averaged about 17.5 percent of 
        the economy throughout modern American history. 
        Revenues rise above this level under current law to 
        18.4 percent of the economy by the end of the 10-year 
        budget window.
            (14) Attempting to raise revenue through tax 
        increases to meet out-of-control spending would damage 
        the economy.
            (15) This resolution also rejects the idea of 
        instituting a carbon tax in the United States, which 
        some have offered as a ``new'' source of revenue. Such 
        a plan would damage the economy, cost jobs, and raise 
        prices on American consumers.
            (16) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does 
        not constitute fundamental tax reform.
            (17) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or 
        eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax 
        rates across the board--not to fund more wasteful 
        Government spending. Tax reform should be revenue-
        neutral and should not be an excuse to raise taxes on 
        the American people. Washington has a spending problem, 
        not a revenue problem.
    (b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this 
resolution that Congress should enact legislation that provides 
for a comprehensive reform of the United States tax code to 
promote economic growth, create American jobs, increase wages, 
and benefit American consumers, investors, and workers through 
revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform that--
            (1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to 
        American families and businesses and reduces the amount 
        of time and resources necessary to comply with tax 
        laws;
            (2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals, 
        with a goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25 
        percent and consolidating the current seven individual 
        income tax brackets into two brackets with a first 
        bracket of 10 percent;
            (3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
            (4) reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent; 
        and
            (5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive 
        system of international taxation.

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

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

SEC. 604. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.

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

SEC. 605. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with 
        disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security. 
        Since enactment, Social Security has served as a vital 
        leg on the ``three-legged stool'' of retirement 
        security, which includes employer provided pensions as 
        well as personal savings.
            (2) The Social Security Trustees Report has 
        repeatedly recommended that Social Security's long-term 
        financial challenges be addressed soon. Each year 
        without reform, the financial condition of Social 
        Security becomes more precarious and the threat to 
        seniors and those receiving Social Security disability 
        benefits becomes more pronounced:
                    (A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust 
                Fund will be exhausted and program revenues 
                will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
                    (B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and 
                Survivors and Disability Trust Funds will be 
                exhausted, and program revenues will be unable 
                to pay scheduled benefits.
                    (C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds 
                in 2033, benefits will be cut nearly 25 percent 
                across the board, devastating those currently 
                in or near retirement and those who rely on 
                Social Security the most.
            (3) The recession and continued low economic growth 
        have exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing 
        Social Security. The most recent CBO projections find 
        that Social Security will run cash deficits of $1.7 
        trillion over the next 10 years.
            (4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security 
        for a larger proportion of their retirement income. 
        Therefore, reforms should take into consideration the 
        need to protect lower-income Americans' retirement 
        security.
            (5) The Disability Insurance program provides an 
        essential income safety net for those with disabilities 
        and their families. According to the Congressional 
        Budget Office (CBO), between 1970 and 2012, the number 
        of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled 
        workers and their dependent family members) has 
        increased by over 300 percent from 2.7 million to over 
        10.9 million. This increase is not due strictly to 
        population growth or decreases in health. David Autor 
        and Mark Duggan have found that the increase in 
        individuals on disability does not reflect a decrease 
        in self-reported health. CBO attributes program growth 
        to changes in demographics, changes in the composition 
        of the labor force and compensation, as well as Federal 
        policies.
            (6) If this program is not reformed, families who 
        rely on the lifeline that disability benefits provide 
        will face benefit cuts of up to 25 percent in 2016, 
        devastating individuals who need assistance the most.
            (7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed 
        on a bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan 
        Commission'' which helped to address Social Security 
        shortfalls for over a generation.
            (8) Americans deserve action by the President, the 
        House, and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social 
        Security. It is critical that bipartisan action be 
        taken to address the looming insolvency of Social 
        Security. In this spirit, this resolution creates a 
        bipartisan opportunity to find solutions by requiring 
        policymakers to ensure that Social Security remains a 
        critical part of the safety net.
    (b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this 
resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to 
make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution 
assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
            (1) If in any year the Board of Trustees of the 
        Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
        the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual 
        Trustees Report determines that the 75-year actuarial 
        balance of the Social Security Trust Funds is in 
        deficit, and the annual balance of the Social Security 
        Trust Funds in the 75th year is in deficit, the Board 
        of Trustees shall, no later than September 30 of the 
        same calendar year, submit to the President 
        recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to 
        achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a 
        positive annual balance in the 75th-year. 
        Recommendations provided to the President must be 
        agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the Board of 
        Trustees.
            (2) Not later than December 1 of the same calendar 
        year in which the Board of Trustees submit their 
        recommendations, the President shall promptly submit 
        implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress 
        including his recommendations necessary to achieve a 
        positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive 
        annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority Leader of 
        the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House shall 
        introduce the President's legislation upon receipt.
            (3) Within 60 days of the President submitting 
        legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which 
        the legislation has been referred shall report the bill 
        which shall be considered by the full House or Senate 
        under expedited procedures.
            (4) Legislation submitted by the President shall--
                    (A) protect those in or near retirement;
                    (B) preserve the safety net for those who 
                count on Social Security the most, including 
                those with disabilities and survivors;
                    (C) improve fairness for participants;
                    (D) reduce the burden on, and provide 
                certainty for, future generations; and
                    (E) secure the future of the Disability 
                Insurance program while addressing the needs of 
                those with disabilities today and improving the 
                determination process.
    (c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of 
this resolution that Congress and the President should enact 
legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability 
Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should 
not raid the Social Security retirement system without reforms 
to the Disability Insurance system.

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

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

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

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) According to the most recent estimate from the 
        Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were 
        expected to hold $739 billion in unobligated balances 
        at the close of fiscal year 2014.
            (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary 
        spending made available by Congress that remains 
        available for expenditure beyond the fiscal year for 
        which they are provided.
            (3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and 
        it remains available for obligation indefinitely.
            (4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
        Control Act of 1974 requires the Office of Management 
        and Budget to make funds available to agencies for 
        obligation and prohibits the Administration from 
        withholding or cancelling unobligated funds unless 
        approved by an act of Congress.
            (5) Greater congressional oversight is required to 
        review and identify potential savings from unneeded 
        balances of funds.
    (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees shall through 
their oversight activities identify and achieve savings through 
the cancellation or rescission of unobligated balances that 
neither abrogate contractual obligations of the Government nor 
reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under programs such as 
Social Security, veterans' affairs, national security, and 
Treasury authority to finance the national debt.
    (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of 
the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, 
and other appropriate agencies should continue to make it a 
high priority to review unobligated balances and identify 
savings for deficit reduction.

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

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

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

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

SEC. 610. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING.

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

SEC. 611. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY POLICY.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has 
        hurt job creation and dampened the economy, slowing our 
        recovery from the economic recession.
            (2) In the first two months of 2014 alone, the 
        Administration issued 13,166 pages of regulations 
        imposing more than $13 billion in compliance costs on 
        job creators and adding more than 16 million hours of 
        compliance paperwork.
            (3) The Small Business Administration estimates 
        that the total cost of regulations is as high as $1.75 
        trillion per year. Since 2009, the White House has 
        generated over $494 billion in regulatory activity, 
        with an additional $87.6 billion in regulatory costs 
        currently pending.
            (4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation 
        (Public Law 111-203) resulted in more than $17 billion 
        in compliance costs and saddled job creators with more 
        than 58 million hours of compliance paperwork.
            (5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to 
        date has added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance 
        paperwork, imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs 
        on the private sector and an $8 billion cost burden on 
        the states.
            (6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules 
        issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 
        these regulations are primarily targeted at the coal 
        industry. In September 2013, the EPA proposed a rule 
        regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired 
        power plants. The proposed standards are unachievable 
        with current commercially available technology, 
        resulting in a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power 
        plants. Additional regulations for existing coal plants 
        are expected in the summer of 2014.
            (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly forty 
        percent of the United States electricity at a low cost. 
        Unfairly targeting the coal industry with costly and 
        unachievable regulations will increase energy prices, 
        disproportionately disadvantaging energy-intensive 
        industries like manufacturing and construction, and 
        will make life more difficult for millions of low-
        income and middle class families already struggling to 
        pay their bills.
            (8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being 
        retired or converted as a result of EPA regulations. 
        Combined with the de-facto prohibition on new plants, 
        these retirements and conversions may further increase 
        the cost of electricity.
            (9) A recent study by Purdue University estimates 
        that electricity prices in Indiana will rise 32 percent 
        by 2023, due in part to EPA regulations.
            (10) The Heritage Foundation recently found that a 
        phase out of coal would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of 
        2023, resulting in an aggregate gross domestic product 
        decrease of $2.23 trillion over the entire period and 
        reducing the income of a family of four by $1200 per 
        year. Of these jobs, 330,000 will come from the 
        manufacturing sector, with California, Texas, Ohio, 
        Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, 
        North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the 
        highest job losses.
    (b) Policy on Federal Regulation.--It is the policy of this 
resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the 
public burdened by excessive regulation, enact legislation 
that--
            (1) seeks to promote economic growth and job 
        creation by eliminating unnecessary red tape and 
        streamlining and simplifying Federal regulations;
            (2) pursues a cost-effective approach to 
        regulation, without sacrificing environmental, health, 
        safety benefits or other benefits, rejecting the 
        premise that economic growth and environmental 
        protection create an either/or proposition;
            (3) ensures that regulations do not 
        disproportionately disadvantage low-income Americans 
        through a more rigorous cost-benefit analysis, which 
        also considers who will be most affected by regulations 
        and whether the harm caused is outweighed by the 
        potential harm prevented;
            (4) ensures that regulations are subject to an open 
        and transparent process, rely on sound and publicly 
        available scientific data, and that the data relied 
        upon for any particular regulation is provided to 
        Congress immediately upon request;
            (5) frees the many commonsense energy and water 
        projects currently trapped in complicated bureaucratic 
        approval processes;
            (6) maintains the benefits of landmark 
        environmental, health safety, and other statutes while 
        scaling back this administration's heavy-handed 
        approach to regulation, which has added $494 billion in 
        mostly ideological regulatory activity since 2009, much 
        of which flies in the face of these statutes' intended 
        purposes; and
            (7) seeks to promote a limited government, which 
        will unshackle our economy and create millions of new 
        jobs, providing our Nation with a strong and prosperous 
        future and expanding opportunities for the generations 
        to come.

SEC. 612. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE.

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

SEC. 613. NO BUDGET, NO PAY.

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

                                  
