[House Report 114-47]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress  }                                         {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session    }                                         {      114-47
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
                            ON THE BUDGET--
                            FISCAL YEAR 2016

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 27

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2016 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2025

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 March 20, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
  
  
  
  
  
  
  



114th Congress  }                                         {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session    }                                         {      114-47
______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

                            ON THE BUDGET--

                            FISCAL YEAR 2016

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 27

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2016 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2025

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


 March 20, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                                        ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

93-721                         WASHINGTON : 2015 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 
  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; 
         DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 
                          Washington, DC 20402-0001        
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                   TOM PRICE, M.D., Georgia, Chairman
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Vice Chairman  CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey              Ranking Minority Member
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           TIM RYAN, Ohio
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee               GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             BARBARA LEE, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina             MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARLIN A STUTZMAN, Indiana           MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina         DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas               TED LIEU, California
DAVE BRAT, Virginia                  DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
ROD BLUM, Iowa                       SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida

                           Professional Staff

                     Richard E. May, 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 2016 Budget Resolution Total Spending 
      and Revenues...............................................    15
    Table 2. Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Resolution Discretionary 
      Spending...................................................    18
    Table 3. Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Resolution Mandatory 
      Spending...................................................    21
Comparison with the President's Budget...........................    25
    Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Resolution.......    27
    Table 5. Comparison of On-Budget Revenues for President's 
      Request and Committee Recommendation.......................    28
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution....................    31
    Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and 
      Private Forecasters........................................    35
    Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget 
      Resolution.................................................    35
    Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal 
      Years 2014-2018............................................    37
Macroeconomic Feedback Effects of Pro-Growth Policies............    47
Functional Presentation..........................................    49
    Principal Federal Responsibilities...........................    53
        National Defense.........................................    53
        International Affairs....................................    57
        Global War on Terrorism and Related Activities/Overseas 
          Contingency Operations.................................    61
        Veterans Benefits and Services...........................    62
        Administration of Justice................................    64
        General Government.......................................    66
        Government-Wide Policy...................................    67
    Domestic Priorities..........................................    71
        General Science, Space, and Technology...................    71
        Energy...................................................    72
        Natural Resources and Environment........................    76
        Agriculture..............................................    78
        Commerce and Housing Credit..............................    78
        Transportation...........................................    80
        Community and Regional Development.......................    83
        Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services.....    85
        Health...................................................    89
        Income Security..........................................    91
        Other Discretionary Spending.............................    92
    Direct Spending..............................................    93
        Social Security..........................................    93
        Medicare.................................................    98
        Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and Related Programs..   103
        Farm Support and Related Programs........................   108
        Banking, Commerce, Postal Service, and Related Programs..   109
        Student Loans, Social Services, and Related Programs.....   113
        Income Support, Nutrition, and Related Programs..........   115
        Federal Lands and Other Resources........................   118
        Other Direct Spending....................................   120
    Financial Management.........................................   123
        Net Interest.............................................   123
        Allowances...............................................   124
        Undistributed Offsetting Receipts........................   125
Revenue and Tax Reform...........................................   127
Direct Spending Trends and Reforms...............................   131
    Table 9. Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   134
    Table 10. Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct 
      Spending...................................................   135
The Long-Term Budget Outlook.....................................   137
Section-by-Section Description...................................   139
The Congressional Budget Process.................................   155
    Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee 
      on Appropriations..........................................   157
    Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (On-budget 
      Amounts)...................................................   157
Reconciliation...................................................   161
Statutory Controls Over the Budget...............................   163
Enforcing Budgetary Levels.......................................   169
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations...................   173
Votes of the Committee...........................................   175
Other Matters Under the Rules of the House.......................   209
Minority Views...................................................   211
Supplemental Material:
    Letters in Support of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget   213
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2016 
  (Legislative Text).............................................   221


















                                                                       
114th Congress  }                                         {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session    }                                         {      114-47

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



 
                 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--
                            FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                _______
                                

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2016 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2025

                                _______
                                

 March 20, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Tom Price of Georgia, from the Committee on the Budget, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                     [To accompany H. Con. Res. 27]
                     
                              INTRODUCTION

                              ----------                              

    It is often said that a budget is more than a dry 
collection of numbers, and budgeting more than a mechanical 
act. With respect to the congressional budget, no one has put 
it better than the renowned political scientist Aaron B. 
Wildavsky:

          [T]axing and spending, resource mobilization and 
        resource allocation, now take up as much or more time 
        on the floors of Congress than all other matters put 
        together. How large government will be, the part it 
        will play in our lives, whether more or less will be 
        done for defense or welfare, how much and what sort of 
        people will pay for services, what kind of society, in 
        sum, we Americans want to have--all these are routinely 
        discussed in budget debates.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Aaron B. Wildavsky and Naomi Caiden, The New Politics of the 
Budgetary Process--Third Edition (New York: Addison-Wesley Educational 
Publishers Inc., 1997).

    This resolution proceeds from that conviction. It seeks to 
restore fundamental principles of budgeting and governing; to 
reverse the drift toward ever higher spending and larger 
government; to reinforce the innovation and creativity stirring 
in the myriad institutions and communities across the country; 
and to revitalize the prosperity that creates ever-expanding 
opportunities for all Americans to pursue their destinies.
    Put differently, this budget resolution expresses a 
vision--a vision of governing, and of America itself. Its major 
principles and aims are described below.

                          Balancing the Budget

    Until the early 1960s, policymakers broadly accepted the 
aim of balancing the Federal budget in peacetime. For many, the 
conviction was practical, uncomplicated common sense: 
Government simply should not outspend its resources. For 
others, such as Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan, balancing 
budgets was a moral commitment.

          Politicians prior to World War II would have 
        considered it to be immoral (to be a sin) to spend more 
        than they were willing to generate in tax revenues, 
        except during periods of extreme and temporary 
        emergency. To spend borrowed sums on ordinary items for 
        public consumption was, quite simply, beyond the pale 
        of acceptable political behavior. There were basic 
        moral constraints in place; there was no need for an 
        explicit fiscal rule in the written constitution.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\James M. Buchanan, ``Clarifying Confusion About the Balanced 
Budget Amendment,'' National Tax Journal, Vol. 48, No. 3, September 
1995, page 347.

    With his alternative views of deficit financing, John 
Maynard Keynes upended the norm of budgeting and challenged its 
ethical underpinnings. ``John Maynard Keynes was not simply an 
important economist,'' wrote James Q. Wilson, ``he was a moral 
revolutionary. He subjected to rational analysis the 
conventional restraints on deficit financing, not in order to 
show that debt was always good but to prove that it was not 
necessarily bad. Deficit financing should be judged, he argued, 
by its practical effect, not by its moral quality.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\James Q. Wilson, ``The Rediscovery of Character: Private Virtue 
and Public Policy,'' On Character (Washington DC: The AEI Press, 1995), 
page 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although Keynes published his theory in the 1930s, it was 
not until three decades later that deficit financing became 
politically acceptable. Even then, President Johnson insisted 
on balancing his final budget, notwithstanding the costs of the 
Vietnam War and his ambitious Great Society programs. After 
that, however, policymakers increasingly found deficits to be 
tolerable, then acceptable--and then, predictably, they became 
chronic.
    The practical effect has been devastating. For a time in 
the early 1990s, it appeared the structural gap between outlays 
and revenues was so entrenched it could not be overcome. The 
balanced budgets later in that decade resulted from a sustained 
stretch of spending restraint and an unexpected boost in 
economic output. Following 9-11, as Congress of necessity 
boosted resources for national defense and homeland security, 
it also gave up restraints on other spending. The tolerance of 
deficits returned, and the government has not seen a balanced 
budget since.
    In recent years, annual deficits exceeded $1 trillion, so 
that nearly 40 percent of the government's spending was 
financed with borrowed money. The government's publicly held 
debt now matches roughly three-fourths of the entire economy--
higher than at any time in the past 65 years--and it continues 
to rise. Of note, these trends are occurring even as the 
government has reduced its spending for military and diplomatic 
activities overseas. The growth of spending and debt results 
from permanent government programs.
    A rising debt level is ultimately unsustainable because its 
growth eventually begins to exceed that of the overall economy. 
As a result, debt service costs absorb an increasing share of 
national income and the country must borrow an increasing 
amount each year, likely in the face of gradually higher 
interest rates, to both fund its ongoing services and make good 
on its previous debt commitments. Ultimately, this dynamic 
would lead to a decline in national saving and a ``crowding 
out'' of private investment, sapping economic output and a 
diminishing of the country's standard of living. (In a worst 
case scenario, this dynamic could also lead to a full-blown 
debt crisis, which would not only be devastating at the 
macroeconomic level, it would also inflict acute pain upon 
families and businesses.)
    Investors and businesses make decisions on a forward-
looking basis. They know that today's large debt levels are 
simply tomorrow's tax hikes, interest rate increases, or 
inflation--and they act accordingly. This debt overhang, and 
the uncertainty it generates, can therefore weigh on growth, 
investment and job creation.
    Interest payments on the debt (the ``legacy cost'' of 
deficit spending) will sum to a staggering $5.6 trillion over 
the next decade according to Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. 
These payments threaten to overwhelm other spending priorities 
in the budget. In a 2012 study entitled ``The Untold Story of 
America's Debt,'' Deloitte LLP, a tax, audit and consulting 
firm, discussed the ways in which debt will hamper U.S. 
competitiveness in the years ahead. Deloitte argues that ``a 
great variety of meaningful investments will almost certainly 
be left undone simply because interest payments will push them 
out of the budget. This is the silent cost of prior debts that, 
unless explicitly recognized, crucially leads policymakers to 
underestimate the effect that prior deficits have already had 
on this decades planned expenditures.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\``The Untold Story of America's Debt,'' Deloitte LLP, June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critics sometimes dismiss the pursuit of balanced budgets, 
claiming lawmakers are unwilling or unable to make the ``tough 
choices'' needed to achieve them. On the other hand, without a 
sound fiscal standard, nothing will compel Congress to pursue 
the necessary policy choices. Some have tried to substitute 
intellectually sophisticated measures, such as the amounts of 
deficits or debt as a share of the economy--yet there is no 
consensus on what the acceptable upper limits might be. The 
abandonment of the balanced budget norm has left Washington 
without a guiding standard by which to measure the status of 
its fiscal policy. Nothing has replaced it. As a result, fiscal 
policy is adrift. Today, the only guideline is the relativistic 
pay-as-you-go concept, which merely ratifies existing deficits 
as the measure of budgetary rectitude--no matter how large 
those deficits might be. Thus, the proponents of the Affordable 
Care Act could boast the measure was fiscally ``responsible'' 
because it did not increase deficits--while it recklessly added 
trillions of dollars to government spending.
    A balanced budget commitment establishes a real-time limit 
on government: The size and scope of government, as measured by 
its spending, may not exceed the amount that taxpayers provide 
and the economy will sustain. Its durability is demonstrated 
even by the nonpartisan CBO. Every time the CBO publishes its 
regular updates of budget and economic conditions, the first 
item it reports is the magnitude of the deficit or surplus--
that is, the relationship between total outlays and total tax 
revenue. It is the very same measure that underlies the 
balanced budget principle. Further, CBO's clear implication is 
that the more spending exceeds revenue, and the more rapidly 
the two diverge, the more unstable is the government's fiscal 
condition.
    The pursuit of balance also has distinct economic and 
fiscal benefits. For these reasons, nearly all economists, 
including those at the CBO, find that reducing budget deficits 
(thereby bending the curve on debt levels) is a net positive 
for economic growth. The logic is 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.
    Former Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke has said that 
putting in place a credible plan to reduce future deficits 
``would not only enhance economic performance in the long run, 
but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower 
long-term interest rates and increased consumer and business 
confidence.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Bernanke Speech at CRFB Conference ``Fiscal Accountability,'' 14 
June 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For all these reasons, this budget resolution restores the 
balanced budget standard, and then maintains it--putting the 
government on a path to pay off the debt (see figure 2, next 
page).

     FIGURE 1
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Entitlements and Other Direct Spending

    Just as important as pursuing balance is the way in which 
lawmakers achieve it. Some experts and policymakers advocate a 
mix of spending restraint and tax increases--the so-called 
``balanced'' approach--as if the two were merely opposite sides 
of the same coin. That sterile, policy-neutral concept, 
however, masks the fundamental cause and effect of government 
budgeting: Spending comes first. Spending--one of the best 
measures of the size and scope of government--is how government 
does what it does. Government's programs and activities exist 
only if government spends money to implement them. ``In a 
fundamental sense,'' writes longtime budget expert Allen 
Schick, ``the federal government is what it spends.''\6\ It is 
because of spending that the government taxes and borrows. 
Spending is the root cause of all other fiscal consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Allen Schick, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process 
(Washington DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 2007), page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO's own figures further demonstrate that spending control 
is the indispensable element of controlling the budget. In its 
most recent long-term projections, CBO shows that even 
excluding interest payments, government programs will outspend 
revenue persistently over the next 25 years. Indeed, while CBO 
projects tax revenue to rise to historically high levels--19.4 
percent of GDP by 2039, well above the 17.4-percent average of 
the past 50 years--spending will still persistently outpace 
revenue. The inevitable debt service will drive total spending 
to nearly 26 percent of GDP, generating relentlessly deepening 
deficits. Only by controlling spending can Congress alter this 
disastrous course.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Congressional Budget Office, The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook, 
July 2014, Table 1-1.

     FIGURE 2
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    That requires controlling direct spending. Unlike the 
government's ``discretionary'' spending, in which Congress sets 
fixed limits on total budget authority, direct (or 
``mandatory'') spending is open-ended and flows from 
effectively permanent authorizations. Programs funded this 
way--typically called ``entitlements''--pay benefits directly 
to groups and individuals without an intervening appropriation. 
That is to say, they spend without limit. Their totals are 
determined by numerous factors outside the control of Congress: 
caseloads, the growth or contraction of gross domestic product 
[GDP], inflation, and many others. To put it simply, spending 
in these programs is uncontrolled and uncontrollable--because 
it is designed to be.
    The list of these programs is long and broad. It includes 
the social insurance programs, Social Security and Medicare; 
other health spending, such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care 
Act; income support, nutrition assistance, unemployment 
compensation, disability insurance, student loans, and a range 
of others.
    In 1965, as President Johnson's Great Society programs were 
being enacted, net direct spending represented about 27 percent 
of the budget. By 1974, when the Congressional Budget Act was 
adopted, it had swollen to 41 percent of total spending. Today 
it has surged to 60 percent. Combined with net interest--a 
mandatory payment in the true sense of the word--the 
government's automatic direct spending consumes nearly 70 
percent of the budget.\8\ It is the main driver of the 
government's debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 
2015 to 2025, January 2015, Tables 3-1, G-3, and G-5.

     FIGURE 3
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Clearly this problem with direct spending has been building 
for decades, yet lawmakers have found it difficult to build an 
enduring consensus for addressing it. With each year that 
passes, the challenge of spending control grows more difficult, 
because the necessary changes in programs become larger and, in 
many cases, more wrenching. At some point the programs will 
simply collapse under their own weight. Those who claim to 
``protect'' them by resisting reform only ensure their demise.
    Gaining control of spending need not be seen, however, as 
some daunting exercise in ``mindless austerity,'' as the 
President so ominously puts it. As long as reform is necessary, 
it can be approached as an opportunity to save and strengthen 
these programs--to make them better for the people they are 
intended to serve.
    Consider a few examples.
    An option for Medicare reform described in this report is 
called ``premium support.'' The basic concept, introduced as 
long ago as the late 1990s, is to transform this retirees' 
health coverage program from a government-run, price-controlled 
bureaucracy, to a market system in which seniors choose their 
health coverage from a range of commercial plans that compete 
for their business. In short, it gives retired Americans, not 
the government, the ultimate leverage over what kind of 
coverage they will have--and the government provides them 
financial assistance in making the choices.
    Similarly, assistance for low-income Americans should be 
revised to encourage self-sufficiency, not to trap people in 
dependency. Clearly, persons with chronic disadvantages need 
and deserve a sturdy safety net. Others require assistance at 
particular times of economic downturns or personal misfortune. 
Still, the most compassionate way to provide government 
assistance is to help free individuals from the need for it. 
Welfare programs should encourage recipients toward supporting 
themselves to the greatest degree possible. As was proved with 
the successful welfare reform of the 1990s, when struggling 
people are challenged to work and earn on their own, they rise 
to the occasion--and they are better off for it.
    It should be noted, too, that government is not the sole 
source of the many domestic benefits Americans enjoy--it is not 
even the primary one. Every benefit the government ostensibly 
``provides'' actually draws from the abundant resources of the 
Nation's free market system. The government could not maintain 
Medicare, or Social Security, or its numerous safety net 
programs without the funding generated by the economy. 
Communities could not build schools and hospitals without local 
economies sufficiently prosperous to support them. This is why 
the fiscal policy of this budget--restraining spending and 
reducing deficits--is crucial to the well-being of all 
Americans. Those who strive to pull themselves out of 
difficulties benefit most from the expanding opportunities and 
rising incomes that only a prosperous economy--not the 
government--can provide.

                               Federalism

    The republic of the United States reached a turning point 
in 1936: That was the first peacetime year in which the Federal 
Government's total spending exceeded the combined outlays of 
the State and local governments. ``It can even be argued,'' 
writes Amity Shlaes, ``that one year--1936--created the modern 
entitlement challenge that so bedevils both parties.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great 
Depression (New York: Harper Perennial, 2008), page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the 20th century unfolded, the national government's 
dominance--both fiscally and as the central governing 
authority--expanded. This was understandable during times of 
war--especially World War II--when the entire Nation was under 
threat. The notion continued to expand, however, into an ever-
growing range of domestic policies. President Roosevelt's New 
Deal was, of course, a major step. Later came President 
Truman's unsuccessful pursuit of nationalized health care; then 
President Eisenhower's interstate highway system; then 
President Johnson's Great Society. By the late 1980s, health 
care once again got drawn in, with some proposing a single-
payer Canadian style health care system for the United States. 
In some respects, this trend culminated with Obamacare.
    As more than two dozen governors recently wrote to the 
House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader: ``Over the last 
several decades, the federal government has passed laws and 
promulgated regulations that restrict the ability of states to 
innovate while requiring states to implement and run programs 
dictated by federal dollars and rules. For a long time states 
were willing to trade off power and responsibility for federal 
taxpayer funds, but we have reached a tipping point where 
states serve to carry out the wishes of the federal government 
instead of serving as laboratories of democracy.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Letter from members of the Republican Governors Association 
[RGA], 29 January 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is precisely contrary to the Founders' vision. ``The 
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal 
government are few and defined,'' Madison wrote. ``Those which 
are to remain in the State governments are numerous and 
indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on 
external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign 
commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the 
most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several 
States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary 
course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties 
of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and 
prosperity of the State.''\11\ As succinctly put in the Tenth 
Amendment: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by 
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\James Madison, Federalist 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, Madison argued the Federal Government would depend 
on the States--not the other way around: ``The State 
governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts 
of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise 
essential to the operation or organization of the former.''\12\ 
This point is proved in reality by the countless activities, 
essential to the lives of individuals and communities, that 
predated the national government and would continue without it. 
Even if the 50 States stood as separate entities, they would 
still operate schools and hospitals; they would find ways to 
build roads and bridges; scientific research would continue; 
energy and communications companies would emerge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is not to say Americans would be better off without 
the Federal Government. Their security and prosperity are 
vastly enhanced by the voluntary unity reflected in the bonds 
of the national Constitution. The point is simply that the 
Federal Government's principal role is to protect the security 
of the Nation, and to maintain an environment that supports the 
initiative and creativity possible only through the diversity 
of the several States and the bonds of civil society.
    The reversal of this concept that developed over the past 
100 years or so also has fiscal consequences. Federal 
Government resources cannot maintain the overreach of its 
governing ambitions. That is the message of Washington's 
current, catastrophic spending path. To restore fiscal 
sustainability, Congress sooner or later will have to consider 
realigning the roles of different levels of government. It will 
have to reinstitute the practice of federalism.
    This will remain a necessity even after Congress gains 
control of entitlement spending. Yet the fiscal concerns are 
only part of the reason. The increasing centralization of 
government smothers the energy of those ``laboratories of 
democracy.'' The entire Nation will benefit from a restoration 
of that energy. As the governors wrote: ``We firmly believe 
that increased state autonomy will reap benefits in critical 
areas such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, 
environment, and employment * * *. [W]e encourage you to 
devolve back to the states the ability to run programs, make 
decisions, and develop innovative solutions. We are prepared to 
take back those powers reserved to the states and would like to 
work with you to determine programs, funding, and 
responsibility that could be shifted to the states.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\RGA, op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget resolution supports these aims. It promotes 
State flexibility in areas such as Medicaid and the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It encourages State 
and local initiative in education. It sheds the conceit that 
Washington knows best what is right for the people. The very 
structure of this report reflects a distinction between those 
activities required of the Federal Government from those best 
suited to States and localities and the private sector.

                   Restoring Congressional Budgeting

    The congressional budget process, enacted in 1974, has 
rarely worked as designed. Deadlines in the Congressional 
Budget Act are missed far more often than made, rules are often 
skirted, loopholes in spending disciplines exploited. Since 
1998, the House and Senate have failed nine times to agree on a 
budget resolution, the cornerstone of the process. Still, the 
practice unquestionably has worsened in recent years. Congress 
has not completed a budget resolution since 29 April 2009. 
Instead, lawmakers have manufactured ad hoc procedures that 
have done next to nothing to stabilize the government's 
catastrophic long-term fiscal outlook. Worse, the budgetary 
mismanagement has become the new norm; what were once vices are 
now habits. The budget calendar is not merely ignored, it is 
deliberately breached, rendering the fiscal year irrelevant and 
leading to a stream of omnibus spending bills of varying 
durations negotiated by a handful of leaders--undermining the 
committee system and depriving lawmakers of the deliberation so 
central to the legislative process.
    This unraveling does have profound consequences. The first 
and most obvious is that without regular budget resolutions, 
Congress has abandoned any serious attempt to manage fiscal 
policy. It is true the Budget Control Act of 2011 established 
caps on discretionary spending, and applied the automatic 
enforcement regime of sequestration. At the same time, however, 
it did nothing to rein in direct spending, the greatest threat 
to the government's fiscal stability. None of the other 
manufactured procedures employed since then has accomplished 
much along these lines either.
    Equally troubling is the effect on Congress's ability to 
govern. The failure in budgeting is the most visible and 
regular evidence of Congress's decline as a governing 
institution:

          The importance of conflicts over the size and 
        distribution of the budget--failure to pass a budget on 
        time or at all has become a sign of inability to 
        govern--testifies to the overriding importance of 
        budgeting. Nowadays, the State of the Union and the 
        state of the budget have become essentially 
        equivalent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Aaron B. Wildavsky and Naomi Caiden, The New Politics of the 
Budgetary Process--Third Edition (New York: Addison-Wesley Educational 
Publishers Inc., 1997).

    Thus, the collapse of budgeting hastens the erosion of 
congressional governing. The more Congress tolerates its fiscal 
ineptitude, the more inept it becomes at legislating in 
general.
    Yet as discouraging as these conditions may be, they can be 
corrected. The restoration of congressional budgeting can 
start, and is essential to, the regeneration of Congress as a 
governing institution. This can follow two tracks.
    First, it is imperative that the 114th Congress 
reinstitute, as far as possible, the ``regular order'' of 
budgeting envisioned in the Congressional Budget Act. The 
existing process is far from perfect. It is complicated, time-
consuming, and often frustrating. The estimating conventions 
underlying budget procedures reflect a distinct bias in favor 
of higher spending and larger government.
    Nevertheless, if employed the process does provide a 
general schedule for spending and tax bills. The budget 
resolution represents an agenda and work plan in legislative 
form unmatched by any other procedure. It gives coherence to 
the legislature's many fiscal measures that did not exist 
before the Congressional Budget Act was adopted. With the 
creation of the budget resolution, Congress's budget became the 
working blueprint for fiscal policy, embracing lawmakers' 
consensus vision of governing.
    Returning to the regular order also offers lawmakers an 
opportunity to learn for themselves, directly, whether the 
process truly is ``broken,'' and if so by how much. ``I could 
easily argue that the budget process isn't broken at all,'' 
remarked former House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle at a 
September 2011 committee hearing on process reform. ``[T]oday 
the budget process is not even being used or at best is simply 
being ignored.''\15\ That state of affairs has only worsened 
since then. Congress has not passed a budget resolution since 
April 2009--nearly six years ago. Legislators have no sense of 
how major authorizing bills fit in the overall scheme of the 
budget--because no such scheme exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Jim Nussle, Perspectives on Budget Process Reform, testimony to 
the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, 22 
September 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Before you search for new budget procedures to `fix' the 
current process,'' Nussle advised, ``actually give the current 
process a try. Prove that Congress and the President can follow 
the current process and rules before you decide that a new 
process or rule will somehow do the trick.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Doing so over the next two years will also inform lawmakers 
about how to fix the process--or perhaps whether they need an 
entirely new one. Recently, various Members and experts in the 
policy community have offered a range of proposals built on a 
kind of problem-solving model. That is, proponents identify a 
specific weakness in the process--say, the difficulty Congress 
has in passing annual spending bills on time--and then offer a 
solution, such as a two-year budget and appropriations cycle. 
Some argue that the President should be more involved in budget 
development at the beginning of the process, as a possible 
means of heading off crisis-style confrontations late in the 
year.
    Many of these proposals focus on practical matters--how to 
make budget procedures more efficient and workable, or how to 
enhance enforcement of budget levels. All this is perfectly 
reasonable. A budget process, no matter how skillfully 
designed, is pointless if lawmakers cannot or will not use it, 
or if it fails to achieve real fiscal control.
    Nevertheless, lawmakers should consider thinking more 
broadly. The process designed in 1974 was complicated to begin 
with; it merely added new procedures onto existing spending and 
tax practices. Since then, Congress has enacted additional 
layers of complexity, such as the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985, the Budget Enforcement Act of 
1990, and the Budget Control Act of 2011--among others. Given 
all this, it may be time to dismantle the entire process and 
build a new one. The lessons of the past 40 years of 
congressional budgeting will certainly inform that development. 
Still, in thinking about a new process, lawmakers should step 
back and ask a threshold question: What is the congressional 
budget process for?
    The obvious first answer is fiscal control. That, however, 
is part of a more fundamental act: the act of governing. 
Because budgeting truly is governing, the budget process should 
be seen as a principal means of exercising constitutional 
government.
    The Constitution does not prescribe how big government 
should be, but it does establish a framework for limiting 
government. One of the best ways to determine that limit is to 
limit spending--one of the best measures of the size and scope 
of government.
    The budget also is Congress's main instrument for 
policymaking, the legislature's essential authority. As Madison 
wrote: ``This power of the purse may, in fact, be regarded as 
the most complete and effectual weapon with which any 
constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the 
people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for 
carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.''\17\ Any 
new budget process should enhance Congress's policymaking role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\The Federalist, No. 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The process also must reinforce the balance of powers, one 
of the most critical protections of liberty. For nearly a half 
century after enactment of the 1921 Budget and Accounting Act--
which attempted to straddle the separation of powers by 
establishing an executive-centered budget process modeled after 
Great Britain's--the presidency grew increasingly powerful. 
Starting in the 1950s, presidents began deliberately tying 
their budgets together with their legislative programs, 
increasing their ability to set the legislative agenda, and 
helping sustain what Schlesinger called ``the imperial 
presidency.''\18\ The 1974 Congressional Budget Act was, in 
part, an attempt to restore the legislature's agenda-setting 
role. The new budget process should advance that effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Imperial Presidency, (New York: 
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, budgeting should be an instrument for enhancing 
congressional oversight. There is no better way to get the 
attention of executive agencies than by controlling their 
funding. The budget process should encourage appropriations 
subcommittees and authorizing committees to use the tool of the 
budget aggressively, and to control the ever-expanding 
administrative state.

                               Conclusion

    As described at the outset, this budget resolution 
expresses a vision; its contours are detailed throughout the 
text of this report. It is also an instrument for implementing 
that vision. Its allocations of spending authority implement 
the budget's priorities; its fiscal path--achieving balance 
within 10 years--restores a sound fiscal norm that long kept 
spending, and the size of government itself, in check.
    To summarize some of the key elements of the budget, 
described in subsequent pages of this report, this resolution:

      Balances the budget within 10 years without 
raising taxes, and places the government on a path to paying 
off the debt.

      Calls for a fairer, simpler tax code to promote 
job creation and a healthy economy.

      Provides for a strong national defense through 
robust funding of troop training, equipment, and compensation.

      Repeals the Affordable Care Act in full, 
including all its spending, taxes, regulations, and mandates.

      Promotes real reform of health care centered on 
patients, not Washington.

      Strengthens Medicare through fundamental, 
structural reforms.

      Encourages State innovation and flexibility in 
Medicaid, nutrition assistance, education, and other programs.

      Calls for regulatory reform to improve 
transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability.

    In pursuit of these budgetary guidelines, the resolution 
seeks to compel the necessary transformation of government 
programs; to restore the principle of federalism; and to 
support a robust economy in which all Americans--whatever their 
vocation or income level--can thrive and pursue their 
destinies.

                                                                                 TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET RESOLUTION TOTAL SPENDING AND REVENUE
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Fiscal year                             2016         2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023         2024         2025            2016-2020             2016-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA......................................................    3,718,694    3,706,405    3,833,114    4,038,606    4,260,257    4,407,753    4,615,040    4,758,854    4,899,127    5,116,099        19,557,077            43,353,949
  OT......................................................    3,788,614    3,721,234    3,810,712    4,003,966    4,211,606    4,372,459    4,597,808    4,720,658    4,843,823    5,079,120        19,536,132            43,149,999
On-budget:
  BA......................................................    2,934,975    2,873,969    2,944,013    3,091,040    3,248,109    3,327,968    3,462,962    3,529,073    3,586,467    3,715,272        15,092,105            32,713,848
  OT......................................................    3,009,033    2,893,883    2,927,040    3,062,131    3,205,489    3,298,907    3,452,463    3,497,911    3,538,398    3,685,230        15,097,576            32,570,485
Off-budget:
  BA......................................................      783,719      832,437      889,101      947,567    1,012,148    1,079,785    1,152,078    1,229,781    1,312,660    1,400,826         4,464,971            10,640,102
  OT......................................................      779,581      827,352      883,672      941,835    1,006,117    1,073,552    1,145,344    1,222,746    1,305,425    1,393,890         4,438,556            10,579,514
Revenues:
  Total...................................................    3,459,531    3,587,670    3,715,285    3,864,756    4,025,170    4,204,151    4,389,325    4,590,782    4,803,620    5,029,396        18,652,412            41,669,686
  On-budget...............................................    2,666,755    2,763,328    2,858,131    2,974,147    3,099,410    3,241,963    3,388,688    3,550,388    3,722,144    3,905,648        14,361,771            32,170,602
  Off-budget..............................................      792,776      824,342      857,154      890,609      925,760      962,188    1,000,637    1,040,394    1,081,476    1,123,748         4,290,641             9,499,084
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...................................................     -345,541     -151,654      -95,136     -139,187     -187,118     -169,211     -185,329     -105,439       12,501       32,887          -918,636            -1,333,227
  Macroeconomic Fiscal Impact on the Deficit..............      -16,458      -18,090          291           22         -683         -903       23,153       24,437       52,704       82,611           -34,917               147,086
  On-budget...............................................     -342,278     -130,555      -68,909      -87,984     -106,079      -56,944      -63,775       52,477      183,746      220,418          -735,805              -399,883
  Off-budget..............................................       13,195       -3,010      -26,518      -51,226      -80,357     -111,364     -144,707     -182,352     -223,949     -270,142          -147,915            -1,080,430
Debt Held by the Public (end of year).....................   13,838,000   14,040,000   14,145,000   14,338,000   14,560,000   14,742,000   15,128,000   15,300,000   15,162,000   15,235,000
Debt Subject to Limit (end of year).......................   19,047,763   19,393,542   19,641,396   19,947,774   20,261,172   20,505,542   20,906,471   21,075,678   20,916,009   20,904,522
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
  BA......................................................      531,334      582,506      607,744      620,019      632,310      644,627      657,634      670,997      683,771      698,836         2,973,913             6,329,778
  OT......................................................      564,027      572,025      586,422      604,238      617,553      630,610      648,269      656,389      663,936      683,350         2,944,265             6,226,819
International Affairs (150):
  BA......................................................       38,342       39,623       40,539       41,437       42,390       42,861       44,081       45,070       46,098       47,148           202,331               427,589
  OT......................................................       42,923       40,821       39,736       39,214       39,564       40,108       40,868       41,633       42,470       43,349           202,258               410,686
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
  BA......................................................       28,381       28,932       29,579       30,227       30,904       31,584       32,293       33,003       33,742       34,488           148,023               313,132
  OT......................................................       29,003       28,924       29,357       29,798       30,388       30,957       31,637       32,338       33,059       33,795           147,471               309,257
Energy (270):
  BA......................................................       -3,581        1,410        1,189        1,196        1,259        1,309        1,335        1,375        1,332         -964             1,473                 5,860
  OT......................................................          654          649          234          307          472          728          863        1,000        1,037       -1,215             2,316                 4,729
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
  BA......................................................       35,350       36,047       36,385       37,206       38,171       38,367       39,221       40,108       40,962       39,095           183,159               380,912
  OT......................................................       38,113       38,268       37,674       37,747       38,304       38,685       39,361       40,319       40,486       38,471           190,105               387,427
Agriculture (350):
  BA......................................................       20,109       23,064       21,987       20,907       19,835       19,296       19,245       19,821       20,020       20,256           105,901               204,538
  OT......................................................       21,164       23,194       21,396       20,275       19,386       18,849       18,830       19,391       19,553       19,851           105,416               201,891
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................       -3,269      -12,373      -10,252       -8,801       -6,903       -6,522       -5,742       -4,965       -3,991       -3,370           -41,598               -66,189
    OT....................................................      -16,617      -26,620      -24,998      -28,587      -27,479      -21,769      -22,819      -23,306      -23,635      -23,845          -124,301              -239,674
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................       -3,487       -3,347       -3,409       -3,619       -3,822       -3,886       -3,928       -3,972       -4,016       -4,159           -17,684               -37,645
    OT....................................................       -3,488       -3,347       -3,409       -3,620       -3,822       -3,887       -3,929       -3,973       -4,017       -4,160           -17,686               -37,652
Transportation (400):
  BA......................................................       36,743       69,381       70,298       76,397       77,763       79,149       80,613       82,128       83,709       85,335           330,582               741,516
  OT......................................................       79,181       69,500       73,623       76,051       76,767       78,369       79,946       81,336       82,724       83,983           375,122               781,481
Community & Regional Development (450):
  BA......................................................        7,082        7,688        8,089        8,381        8,409        8,305        8,304        8,359        8,447        8,579            39,649                81,641
  OT......................................................       19,928       16,753       15,383       13,789       12,567       12,095       10,937        9,345        8,890        8,930            78,420               128,617
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
 (500):
  BA......................................................       80,620       84,746       87,029       85,514       87,901       88,908       90,148       91,237       92,744       94,400           425,810               883,247
  OT......................................................       90,389       90,513       87,366       85,290       87,669       89,276       90,467       91,646       93,101       94,734           441,227               900,451
Health (550):
  BA......................................................      416,475      360,678      358,594      367,103      387,076      388,981      398,136      408,454      425,381      433,945         1,889,926             3,944,823
  OT......................................................      426,860      364,823      360,468      367,916      377,341      389,025      398,233      408,529      425,477      434,143         1,897,408             3,952,815
Medicare (570):
  BA......................................................      577,726      580,837      580,782      639,293      680,575      726,644      808,204      825,577      834,148      927,410         3,059,213             7,181,196
  OT......................................................      577,635      580,777      580,741      639,213      680,481      726,548      808,100      825,379      834,037      927,292         3,058,847             7,180,203
Income Security (600):
  BA......................................................      512,364      479,836      481,994      483,293      516,193      502,001      518,690      525,230      532,515      550,057         2,473,680             5,102,173
  OT......................................................      513,709      475,234      471,951      477,470      510,603      496,856      518,542      519,391      521,105      543,361         2,448,967             5,048,222
Social Security (650):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................       33,878       36,535       39,407       42,634       46,104       49,712       53,547       57,455       61,546       65,751           198,558               486,569
  OT......................................................       33,919       36,535       39,407       42,634       46,104       49,712       53,547       57,455       61,546       65,751           198,599               486,610
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................      896,078      944,535    1,002,680    1,064,126    1,130,310    1,199,245    1,271,338    1,347,673    1,427,813    1,511,114         5,037,729            11,794,912
    OT....................................................      891,941      939,450      997,251    1,058,395    1,124,279    1,193,013    1,264,605    1,340,639    1,420,579    1,504,179         5,011,316            11,734,331
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
  BA......................................................      166,677      164,843      163,009      174,862      179,735      183,969      196,283      192,866      189,668      203,517           849,126             1,815,429
  OT......................................................      170,121      164,387      162,385      174,048      178,778      183,019      195,255      191,834      188,553      202,383           849,719             1,810,763
Administration of Justice (750):
  BA......................................................       52,156       55,450       55,169       56,854       58,585       60,498       63,032       64,917       66,844       68,632           278,214               602,137
  OT......................................................       56,006       57,547       56,659       56,572       58,392       59,992       62,485       64,355       66,264       68,051           285,177               606,325
General Government (800):
  BA......................................................       23,593       22,761       22,817       23,252       23,947       24,192       24,981       25,695       26,010       26,968           116,370               244,216
  OT......................................................       23,576       23,202       23,279       23,084       23,602       24,309       25,114       25,840       25,878       26,825           116,743               244,709
Net Interest (900):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................      366,527      414,768      477,731      531,032      578,654      612,121      642,388      667,089      684,301      695,929         2,368,713             5,670,541
    OT....................................................      366,527      414,768      477,731      531,032      578,654      612,121      642,388      667,089      684,301      695,929         2,368,713             5,670,541
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................      -92,252      -91,570      -92,376      -94,506      -95,251      -95,817      -94,894      -92,787      -89,298      -83,567          -465,956              -922,318
    OT....................................................      -92,252      -91,570      -92,376      -94,506      -95,251      -95,817      -94,894      -92,787      -89,298      -83,567          -465,956              -922,318
Allowances (920):
  BA......................................................      -33,462      -29,863      -32,175      -34,261      -39,009      -42,221      -46,013      -49,123      -50,652      -48,913          -168,770              -405,692
  OT......................................................      -17,275      -24,277      -28,249      -31,078      -35,136      -38,438      -42,205      -45,430      -47,736      -48,058          -136,015              -357,882
Government-Wide Savings (930):
  BA......................................................       27,465      -15,712      -32,429      -41,554      -50,240      -55,831      -63,954      -71,850      -78,889     -113,903          -112,470              -496,897
  OT......................................................       18,416       -3,005      -20,148      -32,383      -42,168      -50,276      -57,849      -65,124      -71,689      -93,929           -79,288              -418,155
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................      -73,514      -83,832      -90,115      -90,594      -92,193      -96,623      -99,437     -104,343     -111,213     -117,896          -430,248              -959,760
    OT....................................................      -73,514      -83,832      -90,115      -90,594      -92,193      -96,623      -99,437     -104,343     -111,213     -117,896          -430,248              -959,760
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................      -16,620      -17,181      -17,794      -18,434      -19,089      -19,757      -20,438      -21,133      -21,839      -22,562           -89,118              -194,847
    OT....................................................      -16,620      -17,181      -17,794      -18,434      -19,089      -19,757      -20,438      -21,133      -21,839      -22,562           -89,118              -194,847
Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism
 (970):
  BA......................................................       94,000       26,666       26,666       26,666       26,666       26,666            0            0            0            0           200,664               227,330
  OT......................................................       44,304       33,716       26,758       26,117       25,862       24,776        9,956        2,869          278            0           156,757               194,636
Across the Board Adjustment (990):
  BA......................................................          -21          -22          -23          -23          -24          -24          -25          -26          -26          -27              -113                  -241
  OT......................................................          -17          -20          -21          -22          -23          -23          -24          -25          -25          -26              -103                  -226
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 
1. Only on-budget amounts for fiscal years 2016-2025 are entered into the budget resolution legislative text. Off-budget amounts are shown for display purposes only.
2. The Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office do not separately track outlays for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) once funds have been appropriated. The budget, therefore, shows in function 970 GWOT
  outlays that result from new budget authority occurring in fiscal years 2016-2025 only. Outlays resulting from GWOT activity prior to fiscal year 2016 are included in budget functions 050 and 150.


                                                                                   TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET RESOLUTION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Fiscal year                             2016         2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023         2024         2025            2016-2020             2016-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA......................................................    1,110,582    1,060,530    1,078,106    1,095,980    1,114,158    1,132,646    1,124,781    1,143,903    1,163,349    1,183,126         5,459,356            11,207,161
  OT......................................................    1,172,280    1,127,059    1,117,857    1,132,371    1,147,422    1,163,133    1,170,379    1,176,793    1,187,230    1,211,974         5,696,989            11,606,499
Base Defense (050):
  BA......................................................      523,091      574,067      599,071      611,079      623,087      635,096      647,848      660,970      673,469      687,356         2,930,395             6,235,134
  OT......................................................      555,724      563,440      577,586      595,199      608,294      621,075      638,488      646,364      653,639      671,938         2,900,243             6,131,747
Base Non Defense:
  BA......................................................      493,491      459,797      452,369      458,235      464,405      470,884      476,933      482,933      489,880      495,770         2,328,297             4,744,697
  OT......................................................      572,252      529,904      513,512      511,055      513,267      517,282      521,936      527,560      533,314      540,036         2,639,989             5,280,116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
  BA......................................................      523,091      574,067      599,071      611,079      623,087      635,096      647,848      660,970      673,469      687,356         2,930,395             6,235,134
  OT......................................................      555,724      563,440      577,586      595,199      608,294      621,075      638,488      646,364      653,639      671,938         2,900,243             6,131,747
International Affairs (150):
  BA......................................................       38,893       39,637       40,498       41,366       42,286       43,210       44,181       45,155       46,170       47,208           202,680               428,604
  OT......................................................       44,218       42,211       41,501       41,079       41,482       42,016       42,578       43,377       44,251       45,169           210,491               427,882
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
  BA......................................................       28,274       28,832       29,479       30,127       30,804       31,484       32,193       32,903       33,642       34,388           147,516               312,125
  OT......................................................       28,898       28,822       29,257       29,698       30,288       30,857       31,537       32,238       32,959       33,695           146,964               308,250
Energy (270):
  BA......................................................        2,054        2,110        2,169        2,221        2,295        2,350        2,411        2,470        2,533        2,590            10,849                23,203
  OT......................................................        2,435        2,284        2,243        2,290        2,375        2,433        2,498        2,561        2,622        2,688            11,627                24,429
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
  BA......................................................       34,366       35,256       36,284       37,357       38,429       39,524       40,692       41,831       43,025       44,260           181,693               391,024
  OT......................................................       36,796       36,971       37,048       37,666       38,669       39,700       40,828       41,918       42,496       43,672           187,151               395,764
Agriculture (350):
  BA......................................................        6,073        6,229        6,409        6,593        6,781        6,968        7,169        7,365        7,576        7,790            32,085                68,953
  OT......................................................        5,979        6,141        6,324        6,504        6,689        6,873        7,072        7,266        7,471        7,684            31,637                68,003
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................      -13,410      -16,367      -16,546      -15,510      -13,141      -12,370      -11,196      -10,054       -9,054       -8,478           -74,974              -126,127
    OT....................................................      -13,067      -16,159      -16,462      -15,566      -13,227      -12,459      -11,287      -10,146       -9,152       -8,575           -74,481              -126,099
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................          267          277          288          299          310          321          334          346          358          371             1,441                 3,171
    OT....................................................          266          277          288          298          310          320          333          345          357          370             1,439                 3,164
Transportation (400):
  BA......................................................       31,049       31,800       32,656       33,535       34,444       35,360       36,304       37,264       36,688       37,656           163,484               346,756
  OT......................................................       78,107       68,491       72,712       75,345       76,185       77,851       79,470       80,868       80,694       81,906           370,840               771,629
Community & Regional Development (450):
  BA......................................................        6,958        7,045        7,199        7,348        7,509        7,682        7,856        8,033        8,216        8,394            36,059                76,238
  OT......................................................       19,577       16,283       14,037       11,996       10,565       10,081        8,591        7,908        8,083        8,268            72,458               115,389
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
 (500):
  BA......................................................       88,248       92,897       94,491       96,297       98,241      100,227      102,273      104,164      106,241      108,321           470,174               991,400
  OT......................................................       91,356       96,048       93,128       94,795       96,633       98,594      100,539      102,404      104,413      106,434           471,960               984,344
Health (550):
  BA......................................................       57,726       58,920       60,297       61,690       63,145       64,602       66,127       67,650       69,241       70,842           301,778               640,240
  OT......................................................       58,409       58,958       59,792       60,302       61,592       62,827       64,296       65,794       67,331       68,903           299,053               628,204
Medicare (570):
  BA......................................................        6,605        6,994        7,424        7,888        8,368        8,875        9,412        9,967       10,547       11,145            37,279                87,225
  OT......................................................        6,556        6,969        7,356        7,814        8,291        8,794        9,326        9,878       10,456       11,047            36,986                86,487
Income Security (600):
  BA......................................................       61,414       62,035       62,909       63,908       65,548       67,096       68,664       70,242       71,806       73,260           315,814               666,882
  OT......................................................       63,626       62,685       62,928       63,555       64,825       66,229       67,708       69,218       70,758       72,174           317,619               663,706
Social Security (650):
  On-budget:
    BA....................................................            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0                 0                     0
    OT....................................................           41            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0                41                    41
  Off-budget:
    BA....................................................        5,026        5,175        5,345        5,518        5,699        5,881        6,072        6,266        6,462        6,665            26,763                58,109
    OT....................................................        5,089        5,190        5,316        5,487        5,668        5,849        6,039        6,232        6,428        6,630            26,750                57,928
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
  BA......................................................       68,602       70,540       72,735       74,992       77,320       79,678       82,135       84,626       87,179       89,826           364,189               787,633
  OT......................................................       68,316       69,857       72,097       74,198       76,474       78,841       81,279       83,723       86,267       88,853           360,942               779,905
Administration of Justice (750):
  BA......................................................       51,019       52,562       54,296       56,089       57,934       59,805       61,756       63,732       65,757       67,648           271,900               590,598
  OT......................................................       51,279       52,625       54,091       55,778       57,450       59,312       61,249       63,212       65,223       67,128           271,224               587,349
General Government (800):
  BA......................................................       16,724       16,134       16,093       16,433       17,057       17,202       17,874       18,556       19,054       19,726            82,441               174,853
  OT......................................................       16,682       16,555       16,578       16,239       16,689       17,275       17,935       18,608       18,790       19,504            82,743               174,855
Allowances (920):
  BA......................................................      -27,758      -27,069      -29,787      -31,883      -36,240      -40,404      -43,857      -46,986      -48,549      -50,852          -152,737              -383,385
  OT......................................................      -14,628      -22,704      -26,536      -29,263      -33,180      -36,961      -40,595      -43,876      -46,223      -48,425          -126,311              -342,391
Government-Wide Savings (930):
  BA......................................................       31,382      -13,188      -29,847      -36,010      -42,360      -46,582      -53,441      -60,571      -66,986      -74,962           -90,023              -392,565
  OT......................................................       22,333       -1,581      -18,166      -27,139      -34,488      -41,127      -47,436      -53,945      -59,886      -67,063           -59,041              -328,498
Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism
 (970):
  BA......................................................       94,000       26,666       26,666       26,666       26,666       26,666            0            0            0            0           200,664               227,330
  OT......................................................       44,304       33,716       26,758       26,117       25,862       24,776        9,956        2,869          278            0           156,757               194,636
Across the Board Adjustment (990):
  BA......................................................          -21          -22          -23          -23          -24          -24          -25          -26          -26          -27              -113                  -241
  OT......................................................          -17          -20          -21          -22          -23          -23          -24          -25          -25          -26              -103                  -226
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                     TABLE 3.--FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET RESOLUTION MANDATORY SPENDING
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Fiscal year                             2016        2017         2018         2019         2020         2021         2022         2023         2024         2025            2016-2020             2016-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA........................................................   2,608,112   2,645,875    2,755,008    2,942,626    3,146,099    3,275,107    3,490,258    3,614,952    3,735,778    3,932,973        14,097,721            32,146,789
  OT........................................................   2,616,334   2,594,175    2,692,855    2,871,595    3,064,184    3,209,326    3,427,428    3,543,865    3,656,592    3,867,146        13,839,143            31,543,500
On-budget:
  BA........................................................   1,829,686   1,818,891    1,871,540    2,000,877    2,139,960    2,201,524    2,344,586    2,391,782    2,429,938    2,539,183         9,660,953            21,567,967
  OT........................................................   1,842,108   1,772,290    1,814,787    1,935,545    2,064,045    2,141,943    2,288,456    2,327,696    2,357,952    2,480,256         9,428,776            21,025,078
Off-budget:
  BA........................................................     778,426     826,985      883,468      941,750    1,006,139    1,073,583    1,145,672    1,223,169    1,305,840    1,393,790         4,436,767            10,578,822
  OT........................................................     774,226     821,885      878,068      936,050    1,000,139    1,067,383    1,138,972    1,216,169    1,298,640    1,386,890         4,410,367            10,518,422
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
  BA........................................................       8,243       8,439        8,673        8,940        9,223        9,531        9,786       10,027       10,302       11,480            43,518                94,644
  OT........................................................       8,303       8,585        8,836        9,039        9,259        9,535        9,781       10,025       10,297       11,412            44,022                95,072
International Affairs (150):
  BA........................................................        -551         -14           41           71          104         -349         -100          -85          -72          -60              -349                -1,015
  OT........................................................      -1,295      -1,390       -1,765       -1,865       -1,918       -1,908       -1,710       -1,744       -1,781       -1,820            -8,233               -17,196
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
  BA........................................................         107         100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100               507                 1,007
  OT........................................................         105         102          100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100               507                 1,007
Energy (270):
  BA........................................................      -5,635        -700         -980       -1,025       -1,036       -1,041       -1,076       -1,095       -1,201       -3,554            -9,376               -17,343
  OT........................................................      -1,781      -1,635       -2,009       -1,983       -1,903       -1,705       -1,635       -1,561       -1,585       -3,903            -9,311               -19,700
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
  BA........................................................         984         791          100         -151         -258       -1,157       -1,472       -1,723       -2,063       -5,164             1,466               -10,112
  OT........................................................       1,317       1,297          625           81         -365       -1,015       -1,467       -1,599       -2,011       -5,200             2,955                -8,337
Agriculture (350):
  BA........................................................      14,036      16,835       15,578       14,314       13,054       12,328       12,076       12,456       12,444       12,466            73,816               135,585
  OT........................................................      15,185      17,053       15,072       13,771       12,697       11,976       11,758       12,125       12,082       12,167            73,779               133,888
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................      10,141       3,994        6,294        6,709        6,238        5,848        5,454        5,089        5,063        5,108            33,376                59,938
    OT......................................................      -3,550     -10,461       -8,536      -13,021      -14,252       -9,310      -11,532      -13,160      -14,483      -15,270           -49,820              -113,575
  Off-budget:
    BA......................................................      -3,754      -3,624       -3,697       -3,918       -4,132       -4,207       -4,262       -4,318       -4,374       -4,530           -19,125               -40,816
    OT......................................................      -3,754      -3,624       -3,697       -3,918       -4,132       -4,207       -4,262       -4,318       -4,374       -4,530           -19,125               -40,816
Transportation (400):
  BA........................................................       5,694      37,581       37,642       42,862       43,319       43,789       44,309       44,864       47,021       47,679           167,098               394,760
  OT........................................................       1,074       1,009          911          706          582          518          476          468        2,030        2,077             4,282                 9,852
Community & Regional Development (450):
  BA........................................................         124         643          890        1,033          900          623          448          326          231          185             3,590                 5,403
  OT........................................................         351         470        1,346        1,793        2,002        2,014        2,346        1,437          807          662             5,962                13,228
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):
  BA........................................................      -7,628      -8,151       -7,462      -10,783      -10,340      -11,319      -12,125      -12,927      -13,497      -13,921           -44,364              -108,153
  OT........................................................        -967      -5,535       -5,762       -9,505       -8,964       -9,318      -10,072      -10,758      -11,312      -11,700           -30,733               -83,893
Health (550):
  BA........................................................     358,749     301,758      298,297      305,413      323,931      324,379      332,009      340,804      356,140      363,103         1,588,148             3,304,583
  OT........................................................     368,451     305,865      300,676      307,614      315,749      326,198      333,937      342,735      358,146      365,240         1,598,355             3,324,611
Medicare (570):
  BA........................................................     571,121     573,843      573,358      631,405      672,207      717,769      798,792      815,610      823,601      916,265         3,021,934             7,093,971
  OT........................................................     571,079     573,808      573,385      631,399      672,190      717,754      798,774      815,501      823,581      916,245         3,021,861             7,093,716
Income Security (600):
  BA........................................................     450,950     417,801      419,085      419,385      450,645      434,905      450,026      454,988      460,709      476,797         2,157,866             4,435,291
  OT........................................................     450,083     412,549      409,023      413,915      445,778      430,627      450,834      450,173      450,347      471,187         2,131,348             4,384,516
Social Security (650):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................      33,878      36,535       39,407       42,634       46,104       49,712       53,547       57,455       61,546       65,751           198,558               486,569
    OT......................................................      33,878      36,535       39,407       42,634       46,104       49,712       53,547       57,455       61,546       65,751           198,558               486,569
  Off-budget:
    BA......................................................     891,052     939,360      997,335    1,058,608    1,124,611    1,193,364    1,265,266    1,341,407    1,421,351    1,504,449         5,010,966            11,736,803
    OT......................................................     886,852     934,260      991,935    1,052,908    1,118,611    1,187,164    1,258,566    1,334,407    1,414,151    1,497,549         4,984,566            11,676,403
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
  BA........................................................      98,075      94,303       90,274       99,870      102,415      104,291      114,148      108,240      102,489      113,691           484,937             1,027,796
  OT........................................................     101,805      94,530       90,288       99,850      102,304      104,178      113,976      108,111      102,286      113,530           488,777             1,030,858
Administration of Justice (750):
  BA........................................................       1,137       2,888          873          765          651          693        1,276        1,185        1,087          984             6,314                11,539
  OT........................................................       4,727       4,922        2,568          794          942          680        1,236        1,143        1,041          923            13,953                18,976
General Government (800):
  BA........................................................       6,869       6,627        6,724        6,819        6,890        6,990        7,107        7,139        6,956        7,242            33,929                69,363
  OT........................................................       6,894       6,647        6,701        6,845        6,913        7,034        7,179        7,232        7,088        7,321            34,000                69,854
Net Interest (900):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................     366,527     414,768      477,731      531,032      578,654      612,121      642,388      667,089      684,301      695,929         2,368,713             5,670,541
    OT......................................................     366,527     414,768      477,731      531,032      578,654      612,121      642,388      667,089      684,301      695,929         2,368,713             5,670,541
  Off-budget:
    BA......................................................     -92,252     -91,570      -92,376      -94,506      -95,251      -95,817      -94,894      -92,787      -89,298      -83,567          -465,956              -922,318
    OT......................................................     -92,252     -91,570      -92,376      -94,506      -95,251      -95,817      -94,894      -92,787      -89,298      -83,567          -465,956              -922,318
Allowances (920):
  BA........................................................      -5,704      -2,794       -2,388       -2,378       -2,769       -1,817       -2,156       -2,137       -2,103        1,939           -16,033               -22,307
  OT........................................................      -2,647      -1,573       -1,713       -1,815       -1,956       -1,477       -1,610       -1,554       -1,513          367            -9,704               -15,491
Government-Wide Savings (930):
  BA........................................................      -3,917      -2,524       -2,582       -5,544       -7,880       -9,249      -10,513      -11,279      -11,903      -38,941           -22,447              -104,332
  OT........................................................      -3,917      -1,424       -1,982       -5,244       -7,680       -9,149      -10,413      -11,179      -11,803      -26,866           -20,247               -89,657
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
  On-budget:
    BA......................................................     -73,514     -83,832      -90,115      -90,594      -92,193      -96,623      -99,437     -104,343     -111,213     -117,896          -430,248              -959,760
    OT......................................................     -73,514     -83,832      -90,115      -90,594      -92,193      -96,623      -99,437     -104,343     -111,213     -117,896          -430,248              -959,760
  Off-budget:
    BA......................................................     -16,620     -17,181      -17,794      -18,434      -19,089      -19,757      -20,438      -21,133      -21,839      -22,562           -89,118              -194,847
    OT......................................................     -16,620     -17,181      -17,794      -18,434      -19,089      -19,757      -20,438      -21,133      -21,839      -22,562           -89,118              -194,847
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMPARISON WITH THE
                           PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

                              ----------                              

    With its higher spending, higher taxes, and relentless 
deficits and debt, the President's fiscal year 2016 budget 
lacks credibility and any sense of fiscal responsibility. It is 
difficult to take seriously. Further, it has no real meaning. 
Since adoption of the Congressional Budget Act in 1974, the 
only budget that matters is Congress's. The congressional 
budget resolution establishes the framework for fiscal policy, 
and for the spending and tax bills Congress enacts. It is the 
one comprehensive budget plan for the Federal Government with 
any actual force; the President's budget is merely a set of 
proposals. With a congressional budget resolution in place, the 
President's budgetary actions are piecemeal: He only signs or 
vetoes separate spending and tax bills.
    That said, the President's budget reflects a view that is 
contrary to sound and prudent fiscal management. It calls for 
higher spending, ever higher taxes and makes no serious effort 
to balance the budget or reduce deficits and debt. The 
President's budget does nothing to tame direct spending costs 
and make the government's benefits programs sustainable for the 
long run.
    For that reason, a few major comparisons between the House 
budget resolution and the President's budget are in order. They 
reflect the difference in the visions of governing that each 
represents.
    It should be noted that in the comparison below, figures 
for the House budget resolution are based on the January 
baseline projections by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. 
For the President's budget, the CBO used its newly revised 
March baseline, released on 12 March 2015. The January figures 
projected deficits roughly $431 billion higher over 10 years 
than did the March baseline. Consequently, achieving balance 
based on the January estimates was more difficult than it would 
have been had the March figures been available while the House 
budget was being developed.

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             HOUSE REPUBLICAN BUDGET\a\                                  PRESIDENT'S BUDGET\b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achieves balance within 10 years.                     Never balances; deficits climb in the second half of the
                                                       decade, reaching $800 billion in 2025 and rising.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduces spending by $5.5 trillion over 10 years.      Spends $6.4 billion more than the House budget over 10
                                                       years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calls for growth-promoting tax reform that lowers     Increases taxes by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, mainly by
 income tax rates and broadens the tax base. The       limiting certain deductions and exclusions, and
 budget contains no tax increases.                     increasing the rate on capital gains and dividends, among
                                                       other things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduces publicly held debt from the current 74        Maintains debt held by the public at the historically high
 percent of gross domestic product [GDP] today to 55   levels of around three fourth of economic output--the
 percent of GDP in 2025, and provides a path to        highest level in 65 years--and adds trillions of dollars
 retiring the government's debt.                       to the national debt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restores the principle of federalism, encouraging     Advances the failed notion that Washington knows best,
 the initiative of State and local governments in      dictating how individuals should live, how State and
 addressing more of the Nation's domestic policy       local governments should serve their constituents, and
 concerns.                                             how businesses should serve their customers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduces spending by $2 trillion by repealing the      Maintains the conceit of centralized, Washington-based,
 Affordable Care Act, the failing attempt to           one-size-fits-all health care.
 nationalize Health care in America.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saves $148 billion over 10 years by strengthening     Increases Medicaid spending by $85 billion over 10 years.
 Medicare and transitioning to a premium support       Imposes $408 billion in new Medicare cuts to hospitals
 model. Achieves another $913 billion in health        and skilled nursing facilities, with no meaningful
 savings, partly by allowing greater State             restructuring of the program.
 flexibility in Medicaid. Saves $1.1 trillion in
 other direct spending.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spends more than the President for national defense   Claims defense spending increases with no plan for
 in fiscal year 2016 and over 10 years.                adjusting the current statutory caps on spending. Hence
                                                       these defense increases are illusory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Figures based on CBO's January 2015 baseline.
b. Figures based on CBO's March 2015 baseline.


                                                 TABLE 4.--SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET RESOLUTION
                                                                [As a percentage of GDP]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                Average
                                             2016      2017      2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023      2024      2025    2016-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficit(+)/Surplus(-):
  Committee Recommendation...............     +1.8%     +0.8%     +0.5%     +0.7%     +0.8%     +0.7%     +0.8%     +0.4%     -0.0%     -0.1%      +0.6%
  CBO....................................     +2.5%     +2.5%     +2.6%     +3.0%     +3.3%     +3.5%     +3.9%     +3.8%     +3.6%     +4.0%      +3.3%
  President's Budget.....................     +2.0%     +2.0%     +2.1%     +2.4%     +2.6%     +2.9%     +2.9%     +2.9%     +2.9%     +2.9%      +2.6%
Debt Held by the Public:
  Committee Recommendation...............     74.0%     72.0%     69.0%     67.0%     65.0%     63.0%     62.0%     60.0%     57.0%     55.0%       n.a.
  CBO....................................     73.8%     73.4%     73.3%     73.7%     74.3%     75.0%     76.1%     76.9%     77.7%     78.7%       n.a.
  President's Budget.....................     73.5%     72.7%     72.2%     72.1%     72.1%     72.3%     72.5%     72.7%     72.9%     73.1%       n.a.
Outlays:
  Committee Recommendation...............     20.3%     19.1%     18.6%     18.7%     18.8%     18.7%     18.8%     18.5%     18.2%     18.3%      18.8%
  CBO....................................     20.8%     20.7%     20.7%     21.1%     21.4%     21.6%     22.0%     21.9%     21.8%     22.3%      21.4%
  President's Budget.....................     21.0%     21.0%     21.1%     21.4%     21.5%     21.6%     21.7%     21.9%     22.0%     22.1%      21.6%
Revenues:
  Committee Recommendation...............     18.5%     18.4%     18.1%     18.1%     18.0%     18.0%     18.0%     18.0%     18.1%     18.2%      18.1%
  CBO....................................     18.4%     18.2%     18.1%     18.1%     18.0%     18.1%     18.1%     18.2%     18.2%     18.3%      18.2%
  President's Budget.....................     19.0%     19.0%     19.0%     19.0%     19.0%     18.8%     18.8%     18.9%     19.0%     19.2%      19.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                              TABLE 5.--FISCAL YEAR 2016 HOUSE BUDGET RESOLUTION VS. THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
                                                                                                        [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Fiscal year                          2016        2017         2018         2019          2020          2021          2022          2023          2024          2025             2016-2020             2016-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
  BA.................................................   3,718,694   3,706,405    3,833,114     4,038,606     4,260,257     4,407,753     4,615,040     4,758,854     4,899,127     5,116,099        19,557,077            43,353,949
  OT.................................................   3,788,614   3,721,234    3,810,712     4,003,966     4,211,606     4,372,459     4,597,808     4,720,658     4,843,823     5,079,120        19,536,132            43,149,999
On-budget:
  BA.................................................   2,934,975   2,873,969    2,944,013     3,091,040     3,248,109     3,327,968     3,462,962     3,529,073     3,586,467     3,715,272        15,092,105            32,713,848
  OT.................................................   3,009,033   2,893,883    2,927,040     3,062,131     3,205,489     3,298,907     3,452,463     3,497,911     3,538,398     3,685,230        15,097,576            32,570,485
Off-budget:
  BA.................................................     783,719     832,437      889,101       947,567     1,012,148     1,079,785     1,152,078     1,229,781     1,312,660     1,400,826         4,464,971            10,640,102
  OT.................................................     779,581     827,352      883,672       941,835     1,006,117     1,073,552     1,145,344     1,222,746     1,305,425     1,393,890         4,438,556            10,579,514
Revenues:
  Total..............................................   3,459,531   3,587,670    3,715,285     3,864,756     4,025,170     4,204,151     4,389,325     4,590,782     4,803,620     5,029,396        18,652,412            41,669,686
  On-budget..........................................   2,666,755   2,763,328    2,858,131     2,974,147     3,099,410     3,241,963     3,388,688     3,550,388     3,722,144     3,905,648        14,361,771            32,170,602
  Off-budget.........................................     792,776     824,342      857,154       890,609       925,760       962,188     1,000,637     1,040,394     1,081,476     1,123,748         4,290,641             9,499,084
Surplus/Deficit(-):
  Total..............................................    -345,541    -151,654      -95,136      -139,187      -187,118      -169,211      -185,329      -105,439        12,501        32,887          -918,636            -1,333,227
    Macroeconomic Fiscal Impact......................     -16,458     -18,090          291            22          -683          -903        23,153        24,437        52,704        82,611           -34,917               147,086
    On-budget........................................    -342,278    -130,555      -68,909       -87,984      -106,079       -56,944       -63,775        52,477       183,746       220,418          -735,805              -399,883
    Off-budget.......................................      13,195      -3,010      -26,518       -51,226       -80,357      -111,364      -144,707      -182,352      -223,949      -270,142          -147,915            -1,080,430
Debt Held by the Public (end of year)................  13,838,000  14,040,000   14,145,000    14,338,000    14,560,000    14,742,000    15,128,000    15,300,000    15,162,000    15,235,000              n.a.                  n.a.
Debt Subject to Limit (end of year)..................  19,047,763  19,393,542   19,641,396    19,947,774    20,261,172    20,505,542    20,906,471    21,075,678    20,916,009    20,904,522              n.a.                  n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            PRESIDENT'S FY2016 BUDGET AS RE-ESTIMATED BY CBO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Spending:
  BA.................................................   4,041,544   4,161,721    4,390,213     4,621,735     4,857,900     5,086,153     5,295,484     5,567,810     5,845,825     6,107,622        22,073,113            49,976,007
  OT.................................................   3,958,645   4,143,196    4,339,080     4,573,920     4,803,655     5,036,382     5,276,532     5,525,365     5,786,203     6,060,581        21,818,496            49,503,559
On-budget:
  BA.................................................   3,255,201   3,327,408    3,499,239     3,671,830     3,842,839     4,002,266     4,137,887     4,331,167     4,525,063     4,698,213        17,596,517            39,291,113
  OT.................................................   3,176,604   3,313,951    3,453,391     3,629,820     3,794,704     3,958,813     4,125,757     4,295,745     4,472,764     4,658,696        17,368,470            38,880,245
Off-budget:
  BA.................................................     786,343     834,313      890,974       949,905     1,015,061     1,083,887     1,157,597     1,236,643     1,320,762     1,409,409         4,476,596            10,684,894
  OT.................................................     782,041     829,245      885,689       944,100     1,008,951     1,077,569     1,150,775     1,229,620     1,313,439     1,401,885         4,450,026            10,623,314
Revenues:
  Total..............................................   3,578,493   3,742,096    3,904,343     4,063,096     4,229,247     4,368,872     4,572,670     4,790,679     5,017,336     5,259,609        19,517,275            43,526,441
  On-budget..........................................   2,783,118   2,911,598    3,032,807     3,154,504     3,283,622     3,384,769     3,547,148     3,723,593     3,906,595     4,101,653        15,165,649            33,829,407
  Off-budget.........................................     795,375     830,498      871,536       908,592       945,625       984,103     1,025,522     1,067,086     1,110,741     1,157,956         4,351,626             9,697,034
Surplus/Deficit(-):
  Total..............................................    -380,152    -401,100     -434,737      -510,824      -574,408      -667,510      -703,862      -734,686      -768,867      -800,972        -2,301,221            -5,977,118
  On-budget..........................................    -393,486    -402,353     -420,584      -475,316      -511,082      -574,044      -578,609      -572,152      -566,169      -557,043        -2,202,821            -5,050,838
  Off-budget.........................................      13,334       1,253      -14,153       -35,508       -63,326       -93,466      -125,253      -162,534      -202,698      -243,929           -98,400              -926,280
Debt Held by the Public (end of year)................  13,844,000  14,332,000   14,844,000    15,432,000    16,078,000    16,813,000    17,583,000    18,381,000    19,213,000    20,078,000              n.a.                  n.a.
Debt Subject to Limit (end of year)..................  19,060,317  19,697,451   20,363,558    21,072,783    21,816,056    22,622,736    23,413,605    24,216,375    25,034,547    25,824,625              n.a.                  n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               DIFFERENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Spending:
  BA.................................................    -322,850    -455,316     -557,099      -583,129      -597,643      -678,400      -680,444      -808,956      -946,698      -991,523        -2,516,036            -6,622,058
  OT.................................................    -170,031    -421,962     -528,368      -569,954      -592,049      -663,923      -678,724      -804,707      -942,380      -981,461        -2,282,364            -6,353,560
On-budget:
  BA.................................................    -320,226    -453,439     -555,226      -580,790      -594,730      -674,298      -674,925      -802,094      -938,596      -982,941        -2,504,412            -6,577,265
  OT.................................................    -167,571    -420,068     -526,351      -567,689      -589,215      -659,906      -673,294      -797,834      -934,366      -973,466        -2,270,894            -6,309,760
Off-budget:
  BA.................................................      -2,624      -1,876       -1,873        -2,338        -2,913        -4,102        -5,519        -6,862        -8,102        -8,583           -11,625               -44,792
  OT.................................................      -2,460      -1,893       -2,017        -2,265        -2,834        -4,017        -5,431        -6,874        -8,014        -7,995           -11,470               -43,800
Revenues:
  Total..............................................    -118,962    -154,426     -189,058      -198,340      -204,077      -164,721      -183,345      -199,897      -213,716      -230,213          -864,863            -1,856,755
  On-budget..........................................    -116,363    -148,270     -174,676      -180,357      -184,212      -142,806      -158,460      -173,205      -184,451      -196,005          -803,878            -1,658,805
  Off-budget.........................................      -2,599      -6,156      -14,382       -17,983       -19,865       -21,915       -24,885       -26,692       -29,265       -34,208           -60,985              -197,950
Surplus/Deficit(-):
  Total..............................................     -34,611    -249,446     -339,601      -371,637      -387,290      -498,299      -518,533      -629,247      -781,368      -833,859        -1,382,585            -4,643,891
  On-budget..........................................     -51,208    -271,798     -351,675      -387,332      -405,003      -517,100      -514,834      -624,629      -749,915      -777,461        -1,467,016            -4,650,955
  Off-budget.........................................         139       4,263       12,365        15,718        17,031        17,898        19,454        19,818        21,251        26,213            49,515               154,150
Debt Held by the Public (end of year)................      -6,000    -292,000     -699,000    -1,094,000    -1,518,000    -2,071,000    -2,455,000    -3,081,000    -4,051,000    -4,843,000              n.a.                  n.a.
Debt Subject to Limit (end of year)..................     -12,554    -303,909     -722,162    -1,125,009    -1,554,884    -2,117,194    -2,507,134    -3,140,697    -4,118,538    -4,920,103               n.a                  n.a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS
                        OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

                              ----------                              


                           A Subpar Recovery

    Although the economy recently has shown welcome signs of 
improvement, it is still languishing in the weakest recovery of 
the modern era--and the expansionist government policies of the 
current administration are among the reasons.
    The U.S. economy technically emerged from recession nearly 
6 years ago, but the subsequent recovery has been subpar. Over 
the past 5 years, real growth in gross domestic product [GDP] 
has averaged slightly more than 2.0 percent annually. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], U.S. economic output 
has been growing at less than half the typical rate exhibited 
during other recoveries since World War II.
    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. In 2013, that 
average slipped to 2.9 percent. In CBO's latest economic 
forecast, average real GDP growth fell to just 2.3 percent. CBO 
has significantly lowered its expectation of long-term growth 
in potential GDP as well, 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. 
This ``new normal''--if that is what it is--is especially 
troubling, because without more robust growth the economy will 
struggle to support the 80 million retirees expected over the 
next two decades, as well as the working age population. 
Standards of living will suffer, especially for middle-income 
earners.
    Government policies will also play a role in this trend. 
The heavy spending promoted by the current administration 
drains economic resources that otherwise would be available for 
growth-producing activities. In addition, the recent sharp 
increase in government debt--which now stands at near-record 
post-World War II levels--will crowd out additional capital 
investment in the long term. Meanwhile, CBO projects the 
Affordable Care Act--the President's nationalized health 
program--will create incentives for people to work fewer hours 
over the medium and longer term.\19\ 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. This is important because CBO's annual 
economic assumptions are adopted for the budget resolution. As 
discussed in the next section, however, a meaningful change in 
fiscal policy can repay in budgetary dividends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 
2014 to 2024, February 2014, Appendix C.

     FIGURE 4
     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     The Current Economic Situation

    Real GDP grew by 2.4 percent (measured on a year-over-year 
basis) in 2014. That represented a slight pick-up from the 2.2 
percent growth posted in 2013. On the other hand, real GDP 
growth over the past 5 years has averaged just 2.2 percent 
annually, well below the 3.2 percent historical trend rate of 
growth in the U.S. Sluggish economic growth has contributed to 
the government's fiscal problems. It leads to lower revenue 
levels than would otherwise occur while government spending 
(e.g. on welfare programs) is higher. According to CBO, if real 
GDP growth is just 0.1 percentage point lower per year, the 
budget deficit would be higher by $326 billion over 10 years. 
Likewise, stronger economic growth would greatly improve the 
fiscal outlook.
    Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 295,000 in the 
latest month (February 2015), modestly higher than the average 
monthly increase over the past year and the 288,000 average 
monthly gain over the past quarter. The unemployment rate 
stands at 5.5 percent, down 1.1 percentage point from the rate 
at the start of 2014 (6.6 percent). When discouraged workers, 
marginally employed, and underemployed persons are counted, 
however, the unemployment rate is 11 percent.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 Index, Table A-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although job gains have been trending up of late, and the 
unemployment rate has continued to decline, other aspects of 
the labor market are not as robust. The labor force 
participation rate, for instance, actually fell in February, to 
62.8 percent, and remains near the lowest level since 1978. 
Long-term unemployment also remains a problem. Of the roughly 
8.7 million people who are currently unemployed, 2.7 million 
(more than 30 percent) have been unemployed for more than 6 
months. Prior to the recession, only about 18 percent of the 
unemployed were out of work for that long. Long-term 
unemployment has genuinely corrosive consequences. For 
individuals, it erodes their job skills, further detaching them 
from employment opportunities. At the same time, it undermines 
the long-term productive capacity of the economy.
    Young people and minorities have been particularly harmed 
by weak labor market conditions and a lack of quality 
employment opportunities. Those in the very early stages of 
their career--young people aged 20 to 24 years old--have an 
unemployment rate of 10 percent, nearly double the rate for the 
total population. (Teenagers 16 to 19 years old face an 
unemployment rate of 17 percent.) Likewise, African Americans 
have an unemployment rate greater than 10 percent, and in the 5 
years since the economic recovery began in mid-2009 have seen 
their real median income fall by nearly 8 percent.
    For most of the working population, wage gains have been 
subpar. Average hourly earnings of private-sector workers have 
increased by just 1.6 percent over the past year. Prior to the 
recession, average hourly earnings were tracking close to 4 
percent. Likewise, average income levels have remained flat in 
recent years. Real median household income is just under 
$52,000, one of the lowest levels since 1995.
    Oil prices have plunged over the past 6 months. Since mid-
2014, crude oil prices have dropped from just above $100 per 
barrel to less than $50 per barrel today. This has led to a 
downward slide in headline inflation rates. For instance, the 
price index for personal consumption expenditures [PCE] has 
increased less than 1 percent over the past 12 months. The so-
called core PCE index (which excludes energy and food prices), 
the Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge, has increased 
1.3 percent over the past year. That level of inflation remains 
below the Federal Open Market Committee's 2 percent objective 
for inflation over the longer run.
    After years of extremely loose monetary policy stance 
(which includes holding interest rates near zero for close to 8 
years), the Federal Reserve has signaled it is in a position to 
begin normalizing policy. The Fed wrapped up its large-scale 
monthly asset-purchase program last October and, with the 
economy improving, it has suggested it will begin to raise 
interest rates sometime this year. With such indications, 
market interest rates would typically be expected to creep 
upward, but the yield on the 10-year Treasury note has actually 
declined in recent months. The 10-year Treasury has averaged 
just under 2 percent so far this year, one of the lowest levels 
since the early part of 2013.
    A portion of the decline in interest rates has been likely 
due to a ``flight to quality'' on the part of global bond 
investors as economic prospects outside the U.S., particularly 
in Europe and Japan, have soured of late. With the economic 
outlook cloudy in some major economies in Europe and parts of 
Asia, many global central banks have signaled their intention 
to keep interest rates low and their overall monetary policy 
loose--in contrast to the Federal Reserve's disposition. This 
divergence in central bank policy stances on interest rates, as 
well as the differing economic outlook between the U.S. and the 
rest of the world, has caused the U.S. dollar to appreciate vis 
a vis other foreign currencies. The U.S. dollar has appreciated 
more than 10 percent on a trade-weighted basis since the middle 
of last year. The dollar's appreciation tends to dampen the 
competitiveness of U.S. exporters as their goods tend to become 
more expensive for foreign consumers. Nevertheless, a stronger 
dollar helps U.S. importing producers by lowering input costs.
    The U.S. stock market has continued to post gains over the 
past year. The S&P 500 is up about 13 percent from its year-
earlier level.

                          The Economic Outlook

    The administration's economic forecast is less optimistic 
than it was last year but it remains more upbeat than either 
CBO or the Blue Chip consensus of private-sector forecasters--
who also are less optimistic than last year. The administration 
expects real GDP to grow by 3.1 percent this year, 3.0 percent 
in 2016, and 2.8 percent in 2017. CBO--upon whose economic 
assumptions the budget resolution is based--expects real GDP to 
grow by 2.8 percent in 2015, 3.0 percent in 2016, and 2.7 
percent in 2017. The Blue Chip consensus expects real GDP 
growth of 3.2 percent in 2015, 2.9 percent in 2016, and 2.7 
percent in 2017. Over the 10-year window of the budget 
resolution, the administration's Office of Management and 
Budget [OMB] expects real GDP growth to average 2.5 percent, 
higher than CBO and the Blue Chip, who both forecast a 2.3-
percent growth average over this period.
    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 5.4 
percent in 2015, declining to 5.1 percent in 2016 and 4.9 
percent in 2017. The administration sees the unemployment rate 
rising during the subsequent years before leveling off at 5.2 
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 5.5 percent in 2015, declining to 
5.4 percent in 2016 and 5.3 percent in 2017, and then leveling 
off at 5.5/5.4 percent later in the decade. The Blue Chip 
consensus sees a near-term decline in the unemployment rate 
similar to OMB, but its longer-term unemployment rate is higher 
than OMB and similar to CBO. According to the Blue Chip, the 
unemployment rate will decline to 5.5 percent in 2015 and reach 
5.1 percent by 2016, before rising and leveling off at 5.4 
percent.
    The administration expects inflation to decline to 1.4 
percent in 2015 from 2014's low level of 1.6 percent before 
gradually rising 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, although both expect 
inflation to be lower than OMB in 2015.
    OMB expects interest rates will rise to more normal levels 
in the coming years. The 10-year Treasury note, which was about 
2.5 percent in 2014, is projected to rise to about 2.8 percent 
in 2015 and 3.3 percent in 2016. OMB expects the 10-year 
Treasury to hit 4.5 percent in 2020 and remain there in later 
years. CBO expects interest rates to rise to that level sooner. 
CBO sees the 10-year Treasury hitting 4.6 percent in 2020 and 
then flatlining at that level in the subsequent years. The Blue 
Chip consensus also sees a gradual increase in interest rates 
over the next several years, with the 10-year Treasury note 
reaching 4.5 percent in 2020 and then remaining at that level 
in subsequent years.

                                      TABLE 6.--ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS: ADMINISTRATION, CBO, AND PRIVATE FORECASTERS
                                                                    [Calendar years]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Estimated
                                                          2014     2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024    2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Year to Year, Percent Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real GDP:
  Administration Budget..............................       2.2     3.1     3.0     2.8     2.6     2.4     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3
  CBO (Jan. 2015)....................................       2.2     2.8     3.0     2.7     2.2     2.1     2.2     2.2     2.2     2.1     2.1     2.1
  Blue Chip (Oct. 2014 and Jan. 2015)................       2.4     3.2     2.9     2.7     2.5     2.4     2.4     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3
Consumer Price Index:
  Administration Budget..............................       1.7     1.4     1.9     2.1     2.2     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3
  CBO (Jan. 2015)....................................       1.6     1.1     2.2     2.3     2.3     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4
  Blue Chip (Oct. 2014 and Jan. 2015)................       1.6     0.8     2.2     2.3     2.4     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3     2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual Average, Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rate:
  Administration Budget..............................       6.2     5.4     5.1     4.9     4.9     5.0     5.1     5.2     5.2     5.2     5.2     5.2
  CBO (Jan. 2015)....................................       6.2     5.5     5.4     5.3     5.4     5.5     5.5     5.5     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4
  Blue Chip (Oct. 2014 and Jan. 2015)................       6.2     5.5     5.1     5.2     5.2     5.3     5.3     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4
3-Month Treasury Bill:
  Administration Budget..............................         *     0.4     1.5     2.4     2.9     3.2     3.3     3.4     3.4     3.5     3.5     3.5
  CBO (Jan. 2015)....................................         *     0.2     1.2     2.6     3.5     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4
  Blue Chip (Oct. 2014 and Jan. 2015)................         *     0.4     1.7     2.9     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4
10-Year Treasury Note:
  Administration Budget..............................       2.6     2.8     3.3     3.7     4.0     4.3     4.5     4.5     4.5     4.5     4.5     4.5
  CBO (Jan. 2015)....................................       2.5     2.8     3.4     3.9     4.2     4.5     4.6     4.6     4.6     4.6     4.6     4.6
  Blue Chip (Oct. 2014 and Jan. 2015)................       2.5     2.7     3.4     4.2     4.4     4.4     4.5     4.5     4.5     4.5     4.5     4.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*0.05 percent or less.
 
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget, and Blue Chip Economic Indicators


                                        TABLE 7.--ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET RESOLUTION
                                                                    [Calendar years]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024    2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Year to Year, Percent Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real GDP:
  CBO (Jan. 2015).......................................    2.2     2.8     3.0     2.7     2.2     2.1     2.2     2.2     2.2     2.1     2.1     2.1
Consumer Price Index:
  CBO (Jan. 2015).......................................    1.6     1.1     2.2     2.3     2.3     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4     2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual Average, Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rate:
  CBO (Jan. 2015).......................................    6.2     5.5     5.4     5.3     5.4     5.5     5.5     5.5     5.4     5.4     5.4     5.4
3-Month Treasury Bill:
  CBO (Jan. 2015).......................................      *     0.2     1.2     2.6     3.5     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4     3.4
10-Year Treasury Note:
  CBO (Jan. 2015).......................................    2.5     2.8     3.4     3.9     4.2     4.5     4.6     4.6     4.6     4.6     4.6     4.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*0.05 percent or less.


                                    TABLE 8.--TAX EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES BY BUDGET FUNCTION, FISCAL YEARS 2014-2018\1\
                                                                  [Billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Corporations                                 Individuals
                      Function                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                                        2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018    2014-18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense:
  Exclusion of benefits and allowances to armed       .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      5.8      6.0      6.5      6.9      7.1      32.4
   forces personnel.................................
  Exclusion of military disability benefits.........  .......  .......      0.2      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      1.3
  Deduction for overnight-travel expenses of          .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.4
   national guardand reserve members................
  Exclusion of combat pay...........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.3      1.3      1.4      1.4      1.4       6.8
International Affairs:
  Exclusion of certain allowances for Federal         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      2.0      2.1      2.2      2.3      2.3      10.7
   employees abroad.................................
  Exclusion of foreign earned income:
    Housing.........................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.4      1.5      1.6      1.7      1.8       7.9
    Salary..........................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      7.1      7.5      7.9      8.3      8.8      39.7
  Inventory property sales source rule exception....      3.0      3.0      3.1      3.1      3.1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      15.3
  Deduction for foreign taxes instead of a credit...      0.2      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.2
  Interest expense allocation:
    Unavailability of symmetric worldwide method*...     -1.5     -1.5     -1.5     -1.5     -1.4  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      -7.4
    Separate grouping of affiliated financial             0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       2.5
     companies......................................
  Apportionment of research and development expenses      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.1
   for determination of foreign tax credits.........
  Special rules for interest-charge domestic              1.3      1.4      1.5      1.6      1.7  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       7.4
   international sales corporations.................
  Tonnage tax.......................................      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.5
  Deferral of active income of controlled foreign        83.4     82.1     82.7     84.5     85.3  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     418.0
   corporations.....................................
  Deferral of active financing income\2\............     .2.5  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       2.5
General Science, Space, and Technology:
  Expensing of research and experimental                  4.6      5.0      5.8      6.4      6.6      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      28.9
   expenditures.....................................
Energy:
  Credit for energy-efficient improvements to         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.6  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.6
   existing homes...................................
  Credit for holders of clean renewable energy bonds    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1       0.5
   (Code sections 54 and 54C)\3,4\..................
  Exclusion of energy conservation subsidies          .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
   provided by public utilities.....................
  Credit for holders of qualified energy              .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.2
   conservation bonds\3,4\..........................
  Energy credit (section 48)........................      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.4      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       2.9
    Solar...........................................      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.3      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1    (\5\)       2.3
    Geothermal......................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)     (\5\)
    Fuel Cells......................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)     (\5\)
    Microturbines...................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)     (\5\)
    Combined heat and power.........................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)     (\5\)
    Small wind......................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)     (\5\)
    Geothermal heat pump systems....................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)     (\5\)
  Credits for electricity production from renewable
   resources (section 45):
    Wind............................................      1.1      2.3      2.9      3.3      3.4      0.1      0.1      0.2      0.2      0.2      13.8
    Closed-loop biomass.............................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
    Geothermal......................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
    Qualified hydropower............................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
    Small irrigation power..........................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
    Municipal solid waste...........................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.3
    Open-loop biomass...............................      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       1.9
  Special rule to implement electric transmission         1.8     -0.2     -0.2     -0.2     -0.2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.0
   restructuring....................................
  Credits for investments in clean coal facilities..      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.0
  Coal production credits:
    Refined coal....................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.1
    Indian coal.....................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.1
  Credits for alternative technology vehicles:
    Other alternative fuel vehicles.................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.1
  Residential energy-efficient property credit......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.1      1.2      1.3      0.7  .......       4.3
  Credit for plug-in electric vehicles..............    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2       1.1
  Credit for investment in advanced energy property.      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       1.3
  Exclusion of interest on State and local              (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.2
   government qualified private activity bonds for
   energy production facilities.....................
  Expensing of exploration and development costs,
   fuels:...........................................
    Oil and gas.....................................      0.9      0.9      0.9      1.0      1.0      0.2      0.2      0.3      0.3      0.3       6.0
    Other fuels.....................................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.5
  Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fuels:
    Oil and gas.....................................      1.0      1.5      1.6      1.6      1.6    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       7.4
    Other fuels.....................................      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.3      0.3    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       1.3
  Amortization of geological and geophysical              0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.7
   expenditures associated with oil and gas
   exploration......................................
  Amortization of air pollution control facilities..      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.3      0.3  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.8
  Depreciation recovery periods for energy-specific
   items:
    Five-year MACRS for certain energy property           0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.2    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       1.4
     (solar, wind, etc.)............................
    10-year MACRS for smart electric distribution         0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.0
     property.......................................
    15-year MACRS for certain electric transmission       0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.0
     property.......................................
    15-year MACRS for natural gas distribution line.      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.1      0.1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.8
  Exceptions for publicly traded partnership with     .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.1      1.1      1.2      1.2      1.2       5.8
   qualified income derived from certain energy-
   related activities...............................
Natural Resources and Environment:
  Special depreciation allowance for certain reuse      (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
   and recycling property...........................
  Expensing of exploration and development costs,         0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.5
   nonfuel minerals.................................
  Excess of percentage over cost depletion, nonfuel       0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.5
   minerals.........................................
  Expensing of timber-growing costs.................      0.2      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       1.5
  Special rules for mining reclamation reserves.....    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.2
  Special tax rate for nuclear decommissioning            0.2      0.2      0.2      0.3      0.3  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       1.2
   reserve funds....................................
  Exclusion of contributions in aid of construction     (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.2
   for water and sewer utilities....................
  Exclusion of earnings of certain environmental        (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.1
   settlement funds.................................
  Amortization and expensing of reforestation             0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       1.2
   expenditures.....................................
  Special tax rate for qualified timber gain          .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5       2.6
   (including coal and iron ore)....................
  Treatment of income from exploration and mining of  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.5
   natural resources as qualifying income under the
   publicly-traded partnership rules................
Agriculture:
  Expensing of soil and water conservation              (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.4
   expenditures.....................................
  Expensing of the costs of raising dairy and           (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2       0.9
   breeding cattle..................................
  Exclusion of cost-sharing payments................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
  Exclusion of cancellation of indebtedness income    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.4
   of farmers.......................................
  Income averaging for farmers and fishermen........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.2
  Five-year carryback period for net operating          (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.4
   losses attributable to farming...................
  Expensing by farmers for fertilizer and soil          (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.4
   conditioner costs................................
  Cash accounting for agriculture...................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
Commerce and Housing:
  Housing:
    Deduction for mortgage interest on owner-         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     67.8     74.8     81.6     87.8     93.2     405.2
     occupied residences............................
    Deduction for property taxes on real property...  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     31.9     34.0     36.4     38.8     41.0     182.1
    Exclusion of capital gains on sales of principal  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     24.1     27.4     30.8     32.5     34.4     149.3
     residences.....................................
    Exclusion of interest on State and local              0.3      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.9      0.9      0.9      1.0      1.1       6.6
     government qualified private activity bonds for
     owner-occupied housing\6\......................
    Deduction for premiums for qualified mortgage     .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.6  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.6
     insurance......................................
    Credit for low-income housing...................      6.8      7.3      7.8      8.3      8.6      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.4      0.4      40.5
    Credit for rehabilitation of historic structures      0.7      0.7      0.8      0.9      0.9      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2       4.9
    Credit for rehabilitation of structures, other      (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.5
     than historic structures.......................
    Exclusion of interest on State and local              0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.7      0.7      0.7      0.8      0.8       5.2
     government qualified private activity bonds for
     rental housing.................................
    Depreciation of rental housing in excess of           0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5      4.3      4.2      4.2      4.2      4.3      23.7
     alternative depreciation system................
  Other business and commerce:
    Exclusion of interest on State and local              0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3       2.0
     government small-issue qualified private
     activity bonds.................................
    Carryover basis of capital gains on gifts.......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     -3.5     -4.6     16.1     15.5     12.7      36.1
    Deferral of gain on non-dealer installment sales      6.9      6.9      6.8      6.7      6.7      2.7      2.1      1.7      1.4      1.2      43.0
    Deferral of gain on like-kind exchanges.........     11.7     13.6     13.8     14.2     14.7      5.2      6.1      6.2      6.4      6.7      98.6
    Expensing under section 179 of depreciable            2.5      0.9      1.0      0.9      0.8      4.5      1.7      2.0      1.8      1.5      17.6
     business property..............................
    Amortization of business startup costs..........  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.5
    Reduced rates on first $10,000,000 of corporate       3.8      4.0      4.2      4.2      4.2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      20.4
     taxable income.................................
    Exemptions from imputed interest rules..........    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.6      0.6      0.6      0.7      0.7       3.2
    Expensing of magazine circulation expenditures..    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
    Special rules for magazine, paperback book, and     (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.2
     record returns.................................
    Completed contract rules........................      0.8      0.9      0.9      0.9      1.0      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       5.0
    Cash accounting, other than agriculture.........      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      1.8      1.8      1.9      1.9      2.0      10.8
    Credit for employer-paid FICA taxes on tips.....      0.8      0.9      0.9      1.0      1.0      0.6      0.6      0.6      0.7      0.7       7.7
    Deduction for income attributable to domestic        12.2     12.5     13.2     13.6     13.6      4.6      4.7      5.0      5.2      5.2      89.9
     production activities..........................
    Credit for the cost of carrying tax-paid            (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.1
     distilled spirits in wholesale inventories.....
    Reduced rates of tax on dividends and long-term   .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     96.5    120.3    134.3    138.1    143.5     632.8
     capital gains..................................
    Surtax on net investment income*................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    -28.0    -32.6    -34.7    -36.6    -38.9    -170.8
    Exclusion of capital gains at death.............  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     31.5     33.2     34.9     36.7     38.5     174.8
    Expensing of costs to remove architectural and      (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
     transportation barriers to the handicapped and
     elderly........................................
    Exclusion for gain from certain small business    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.8      0.9      1.0      1.0      1.1       4.9
     stock..........................................
    Distributions in redemption of stock to pay       .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.2
     various taxes imposed at death.................
    Inventory methods and valuation:
      Last in first out.............................      1.5      1.5      1.6      1.6      1.6      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3       9.2
      Lower of cost or market.......................      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.4
      Specific identification for homogeneous           (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
       products.....................................
    Exclusion of gain or loss on sale or exchange of    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.1
     brownfield property............................
    Income recognition rule for gain or loss from       (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      1.0      1.0      1.0      1.0      1.0       5.1
     section 1256 contracts.........................
    Net alternative minimum tax attributable to net      -0.5     -0.5     -0.5     -0.5     -0.5     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1     -0.1      -3.0
     operating loss limitation*.....................
    Exclusion of interest on State and local            (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
     qualified private activity bonds for green
     buildings and sustainable design projects......
    Depreciation of buildings other than rental           0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.3      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2       2.2
     housing in excess of alternative depreciation
     system.........................................
    Depreciation of equipment in excess of the          -23.7    -21.0     -5.2      6.3     14.8     -9.7     -8.6     -2.1      2.6      6.1     -40.7
     alternative depreciation system\7\.............
Financial institutions:
  Exemption of credit union income..................      2.1      2.2      2.4      2.5      2.7  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      11.9
  Insurance companies:
    Exclusion of investment income on life insurance      2.7      2.7      2.8      2.8      2.9     27.4     28.1     28.9     29.5     30.3     158.1
     and annuity contracts..........................
    Small life insurance company taxable income         (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.2
     adjustment.....................................
    Special treatment of life insurance company           2.7      2.9      3.2      3.3      3.3  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      15.4
     reserves.......................................
    Special deduction for Blue Cross and Blue Shield      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       2.1
     companies......................................
    Tax-exempt status and election to be taxed only       0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.4
     on investment income for certain small property
     and casualty insurance companies...............
    Interest rate and discounting period assumptions      2.1      2.3      2.6      2.6      2.6  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      12.2
     for reserves of property and casualty insurance
     companies......................................
    Proration for property and casualty insurance         0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       2.0
     companies......................................
Transportation:
  Exclusion of employer-paid transportation benefits  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      4.9      5.0      5.2      5.5      5.7      26.3
   (parking, van pools, and transit passes).........
  Deferral of tax on capital construction funds of        0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.5
   shipping companies...............................
  Exclusion of interest on State and local              (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.5
   government qualified private activity bonds for
   highway projects and rail-truck transfer
   facilities.......................................
  Exclusion of interest on State and local              (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
   government qualified private activity bonds for
   high-speed intercity rail facilities.............
  Exclusion of interest on State and local                0.2      0.2      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.6      0.7      0.7      0.7      0.7       4.7
   government qualified private activity bonds for
   private airports, docks, and mass-commuting
   facilities.......................................
Community and Regional Development:
  Empowerment zone tax incentives...................      0.1      0.1    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.4
  Renewal community incentives......................    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       0.2
  New markets tax credit............................      1.0      1.0      1.1      1.1      1.0    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       5.2
  District of Columbia tax incentives...............    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.6
  Credit for Indian reservation employment..........    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)  .......       0.1
  Exclusion of interest on State and local                0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.4       2.2
   government qualified private activity bonds for
   sewage, water, and hazardous waste facilities....
  Recovery zone economic development bonds\3,4\.....    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2       0.9
  Eliminate requirement that financial institutions       0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5      0.5  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......       2.6
   allocate interest expense attributable to tax-
   exempt interest..................................
 
  Disaster Relief:
    National disaster relief........................
                                                                                           [Estimate contained in other provisions]
Education, Training, Employment, and Social
 Services:
  Education and training:
    Deduction for interest on student loans.........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.7      1.8      1.9      1.9      2.1       9.4
    Exclusion of earnings of Coverdell education      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.2       0.6
     savings accounts...............................
    Exclusion of scholarship and fellowship income..  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      2.6      2.7      2.9      3.0      3.2      14.4
    Exclusion of income attributable to the           .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2       1.0
     discharge of certain student loan debt and NHSC
     and certain state educational loan repayments..
    Exclusion of employer-provided education          .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2       6.0
     assistance benefits............................
    Exclusion of employer-provided tuition reduction  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3       1.5
     benefits.......................................
    Parental personal exemption for students aged 19  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      4.7      4.8      5.0      5.2      5.5      25.2
     to 23..........................................
    Exclusion of interest on State and local              0.1      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.5       2.9
     government qualified private activity bonds for
     student loans..................................
    Exclusion of interest on State and local              0.9      1.0      1.0      1.0      1.1      2.3      2.6      2.6      2.8      2.9      18.3
     government qualified private activity bonds for
     private nonprofit and qualified public
     educational facilities.........................
    Credit for holders of qualified zone academy          0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       1.3
     bonds\3,4\.....................................
    Deduction for charitable contributions to             0.3      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.4      6.0      6.2      6.4      6.6      6.8      33.9
     educational institutions.......................
    Credits for tuition for post-secondary            .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     23.0     24.3     24.3     24.4     14.2     110.1
     education\4\...................................
    Exclusion of tax on earnings of qualified
     tuition programs:
      Prepaid tuition programs......................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1       0.3
      Savings account programs......................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.7      0.9      1.1      1.3      1.5       5.6
    Qualified school construction bonds\3,4\........    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.9      1.0      1.1      1.2      1.3       5.5
  Employment:
    Exclusion of employee meals and lodging (other    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      2.0      2.1      2.1      2.2      2.3      10.7
     than military).................................
    Exclusion of benefits provided under cafeteria    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     34.5     36.7     38.4     40.5     42.9     193.0
     plans\8\.......................................
    Exclusion of housing allowances for ministers...  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.7      0.8      0.8      0.8      0.8       3.9
    Exclusion of miscellaneous fringe benefits......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      7.3      7.5      7.7      7.8      8.0      38.3
    Exclusion of employee awards....................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3      0.3       1.6
    Exclusion of income earned by voluntary           .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      3.1      3.2      3.2      3.3      3.3      16.1
     employees' beneficiary associations............
    Special tax provisions for employee stock             0.9      0.9      0.9      0.9      1.0    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       4.6
     ownership plans (ESOPs)........................
    Deferral of taxation on spread on acquisition of     -1.1     -1.1     -1.2     -1.2     -1.1      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.3      0.3      -3.9
     stock under incentive stock option plans*......
    Deferral of taxation on spread on employee stock     -0.1     -0.1     -0.2     -0.2     -0.2    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.1      0.1      -0.6
     purchase plans*................................
    Disallowance of deduction for excess parachute       -0.2     -0.2     -0.2     -0.2     -0.2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      -1.2
     payments (applicable if payments to a
     disqualified individual are contingent on a
     change of control of a corporation and are
     equal to or greater than three times the
     individual's annualized includible
     compensation)\9\*..............................
    Limits on deductible compensation\9\*...........     -0.7     -0.8     -0.8     -0.9     -0.9  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      -4.1
    Work opportunity tax credit.....................      0.8      0.8      0.6      0.3      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1  .......  .......       3.0
  Social services:
    Credit for children under age 17\4\.............  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     57.3     57.3     57.0     57.1     56.8     285.5
    Credit for child and dependent care and           .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      4.6      4.6      4.7      4.8      4.8      23.5
     exclusion ofemployer-provided child care\4,10\.
    Credit for employer-provided dependent care.....    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
    Exclusion of certain foster care payments.......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4       2.0
    Adoption credit and employee adoption benefits    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4      0.4       2.2
     exclusion......................................
    Deduction for charitable contributions, other         1.0      1.0      1.1      1.1      1.1     34.8     36.2     37.3     38.5     39.8     192.0
     than foreducation and health\11\...............
    Credit for disabled access expenditures.........    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.3
Health:
  Exclusion of employer contributions for health      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    143.0    150.6    155.8    163.6    172.0     785.1
   care, health insurance premiums, and long-term
   care insurance premiums\12\......................
  Exclusion of medical care and TRICARE medical       .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      2.5      2.4      2.4      2.4      2.4      12.2
   insurance for military dependents, retirees, and
   retiree dependents not enrolled in Medicare......
  Exclusion of health insurance benefits for          .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.7      0.8      0.8      0.9      0.9       4.1
   military retirees and retiree dependents enrolled
   in Medicare......................................
  Deduction for health insurance premiums and long-   .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      5.4      5.6      6.0      6.5      5.8      29.4
   term care insurance premiums by the self-employed
  Deduction for medical expenses and long-term care   .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      9.9     11.0     12.4     12.7     13.9      59.9
   expenses.........................................
  Exclusion of workers' compensation benefits         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      4.8      4.9      5.0      5.1      5.2      25.1
   (medical benefits)...............................
  Health savings accounts...........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.6      1.9      2.3      2.6      3.1      11.5
  Exclusion of interest on State and local                0.6      0.7      0.7      0.7      0.7      1.6      1.8      1.8      2.0      2.0      12.5
   government qualified private activity bonds for
   private nonprofit hospital facilities............
  Deduction for charitable contributions to health        1.8      1.9      1.9      2.0      2.0      3.0      3.2      3.3      3.4      3.5      25.9
   organizations....................................
  Credit for orphan drug research...................      0.7      0.8      0.9      1.0      1.1    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       4.5
  Tax credit for small businesses purchasing              0.1      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.8      1.3      1.2      0.9      1.1       6.2
   employer insurance...............................
  Subsidies for insurance purchased through health    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     15.5     35.8     74.3     92.4    100.1     318.1
   benefit exchanges\4\.............................
Medicare:
  Exclusion of Medicare benefits:
    Hospital insurance (Part A).....................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     31.8     33.2     36.6     38.4     40.8     180.7
    Supplementary medical insurance (Part B)........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     22.7     23.7     25.8     27.2     28.6     128.1
    Prescription drug insurance (Part D)............  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      6.5      7.4      9.0      9.2      9.3      41.4
Income Security:
  Exclusion of workers' compensation benefits         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      2.6      2.7      2.9      3.0      3.2      14.4
   (disability and survivors payments)..............
  Exclusion of damages on account of personal         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.6      1.7      1.7      1.7      1.7       8.4
   physical injuries or physical sickness...........
  Exclusion of special benefits for disabled coal     .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
   miners...........................................
  Exclusion of cash public assistance benefits......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      3.4      3.7      4.2      4.3      4.2      19.7
  Net exclusion of pension contributions and
   earnings:
    Plans covering partners and sole proprietors      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      5.8      8.7     10.0     11.4     16.2      52.1
     (sometimes referred to as ``Keogh plans'').....
    Defined benefit plans...........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     26.0     41.3     50.4     61.2     69.4     248.3
    Defined contribution plans......................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     44.9     62.3     81.2     98.9    111.7     399.0
  Individual retirement arrangements:
    Traditional IRAs................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     11.8     12.8     13.9     15.0     16.0      69.5
    Roth IRAs.......................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      4.9      5.5      6.1      6.6      7.2      30.2
  Credit for certain individuals for elective         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2       6.0
   deferrals and IRA contributions..................
  Exclusion of other employee benefits:
    Premiums on group term life insurance (excludes   .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      3.1      3.2      3.4      3.5      3.6      16.8
     payroll taxes).................................
    Premiums on accident and disability insurance...  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      3.9      4.1      4.2      4.4      4.6      21.3
  Additional standard deduction for the blind and     .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      2.7      2.9      3.0      3.3      3.5      15.3
   the elderly......................................
  Deduction for casualty and theft losses...........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.4      0.4      0.5      0.5      0.5       2.3
  Earned income credit\4\...........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     69.2     70.4     71.1     72.2     69.9     352.8
  Phase out of the personal exemption for the         .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    -14.3    -15.3    -16.4    -17.6    -18.6     -82.2
   regular income tax, and disallowance of the
   personal exemption and the standard deduction
   against the alternative minimum tax*.............
  Exclusion of survivor annuities paid to families    .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.1
   of public safety officers killed in the line of
   duty.............................................
  Exclusion of disaster mitigation payments.........    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.2
Social Security and Railroad Retirement:
  Exclusion of untaxed Social Security and railroad   .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     37.4     39.3     41.5     44.1     46.8     209.1
   retirement benefits..............................
Veterans' Benefits and Services:
  Exclusion of veterans' disability compensation....  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      6.5      6.8      7.8      7.6      7.2      35.9
  Exclusion of veterans' pensions...................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2       0.9
  Exclusion of veterans' readjustment benefits......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.6      1.6      1.8      1.9      1.9       8.8
  Exclusion of interest on State and local              (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)       0.3
   government qualified private activity bonds for
   veterans' housing................................
General Purpose Fiscal Assistance:
  Exclusion of interest on public purpose State and       9.3      9.7      9.8     10.1     10.3     23.8     25.6     26.0     26.7     29.1     179.6
   local government bonds...........................
  Deduction of nonbusiness State and local            .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     56.5     59.2     63.0     66.9     70.7     316.4
   government income taxes, sales taxes, and
   personal property taxes..........................
  Build America bonds\3,4\..........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      3.2      3.2      3.2      3.2      3.2      16.0
Interest:
  Deferral of interest on savings bonds.............  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      1.2      1.2      1.3      1.3      1.3       6.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. An ``*'' indicates a negative tax expenditure for the 2014-2018 period.
 
\1\Reflects legislation enacted by June 30, 2014.
\2\Does not include provision that permits look-through of payments between related foreign corporations.
\3\Estimate includes an outlay to State and local governments. For the purposes of this table outlays are attributed to individuals.
\4\Estimate includes refundability associated with the following outlay effects:


 
                                                                      Corporations                                 Individuals
                                                                                                                                                  Total
                                                        2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018    2014-18
 
 
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    Credit for holders of clean renewable energy      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.2
     bonds..........................................
    Credit for holders of qualified energy            .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)    (\5\)      0.2
     conservation bonds.............................
    Recovery zone economic development bonds........  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.2      0.8
    Credit for holders of qualified zone academy      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.1      0.3
     bonds..........................................
    Credits for tuition for post-secondary education  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      7.5      8.3      8.7      9.2      9.1     42.8
    Qualified school construction bonds.............  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.9      1.0      1.1      1.2      1.3      5.4
    Credit for children under age 17................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     33.1     33.7     34.3     35.3     35.2    171.6
    Credit for child and dependent care and           .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      0.9      0.9      0.9      0.9      0.9      4.5
     exclusion of employer-provided child care......
    Subsidies for insurance purchased through health  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     13.4     30.4     64.2     80.3     86.9    275.3
     benefit exchanges..............................
    Earned income credit............................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......     60.6     61.8     62.2     63.0     60.5    308.1
    Build America bonds.............................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......      3.2      3.2      3.2      3.2      3.2  16.0 3,L
                                                                                                                                                2(0,,0,,
                                                                                                                                                ),tp0,i1
                                                                                                                                                ,o252,38
                                                                                                                                                ,38,61
                                                                                                                                                   1  1
 
 
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
      ..............................................
 


 
 
 
 
 
\5\Positive tax expenditure of less than $50 million.
\6\Estimate includes effect of credit for interest on certain home mortgages (Section 25).
\7\Includes bonus depreciation and general acceleration under MACRS.
\8\Estimate includes amounts of employer-provided health insurance purchased through cafeteria plans and employer-provided child care purchased through
  dependent care flexible spending accounts. These amounts are also included in other line items in this table.
\9\Estimate does not include effects of changes made by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
\10\Estimate includes employer-provided child care purchased through dependent care flexible spending accounts.
\11\In addition to the general charitable deduction, the tax expenditure accounts for the higher percentage limitation for public charities, the fair
  market value deduction for related-use tangible personal property, the enhanced deduction for inventory, the fair market value deduction for publicly
  traded stock and exceptions to the partial interest rules.
\12\Estimate includes employer-provided health insurance purchased through cafeteria plans.

                     MACROECONOMIC FEEDBACK EFFECTS
                         OF PRO-GROWTH 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 the Congressional 
Budget Office [CBO], if growth in real gross domestic product 
is just 0.1 percentage point higher than expected over its 10-
year window, revenue would be $288 billion higher, spending 
would be nearly $37 billion lower, and the cumulative deficit 
would fall by $326 billion.
    Conversely, as noted in the previous section, the lowering 
of economic growth projections raises significant difficulties 
in trying to restore fiscal balance. It poses a challenge for 
this budget resolution, which, as is customary, generally 
adopts CBO's economic assumptions. It also creates a 
disadvantage for congressional budgets compared with those of 
the President. The administration enjoys the luxury of using 
its own economic projections, rather than those of the 
nonpartisan CBO. In addition, the President's budget is a 
``post-policy'' presentation; that is, it incorporates any 
beneficial fiscal or economic effects the administration claims 
will result from its policies--something congressional budgets 
usually have not done.
    CBO has written extensively on the risks to the economy of 
deficits and debt, and how reducing deficits and debt would 
benefit the economy. Other policies likely to boost economic 
growth include fundamental tax reform, increasing domestic 
energy production, and the restoration of incentives for people 
to work, save, and invest.
    CBO's analysis of the fiscal path of this year's House 
budget resolution estimates that reducing budget deficits, 
thereby bending the curve on debt levels, would be a net 
positive for economic growth. According to that analysis, the 
fiscal year 2016 budget would increase real economic output per 
person by 1.5 percent, or about $1,000, in 2025, and by 6.5 
percent, or about $5,000, in 2040 when compared with CBO's 
extended baseline. The 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Congressional Budget Office, Budgetary and Economic Outcomes 
Under Paths for Federal Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by 
Chairman Price, March 2015, March 2015: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/
default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49977-PriceBudgetResolution.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 also estimates the fiscal path of this budget 
resolution--which provides 10-year savings of $5.468 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 $147 
billion.\22\ The budget resolution incorporates these 
macroeconomic feedback effects into the budget figures, 
recognizing that deficit reduction repays in economic dividends 
that add to the savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Ibid.
                        FUNCTIONAL PRESENTATION

                              ----------                              

    For decades, the budget resolution and accompanying report 
have presented the function-by-function breakdown in a manner 
that evolved mostly from practical and accounting 
considerations. The arrangement has changed little since 
enactment of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    This resolution retains those conventional categories, as 
do the summary tables in the report. The narrative discussion 
below, however, takes a different approach. While keeping the 
content of the functional categories intact, it arranges them 
differently to reflect two important considerations: the 
crucial role of federalism in the United States' governing 
system, and the increasing burden of direct spending (commonly 
called ``mandatory'' spending) benefits programs.
    The standard budget resolution format presents a range of 
government activities largely without distinguishing those of 
principal importance to the national government from those that 
may draw greater initiative from States and localities or the 
private sector. While National Defense and International 
Affairs appear first--as is appropriate for two of the Federal 
Government's main responsibilities--the sequencing of the 
remaining functions seems to lack any logic other than their 
function numbers. There is no reason, for example why Energy 
(Function 270) should appear before Health (Function 550), or 
Veterans Benefits and Services (Function 700), or 
Administration of Justice (Function 750).
    The narratives below are arranged to make such a 
distinction. The presentation retains the content of each 
functional category, just as in the conventional format, but 
organizes the functional discussions in four broader categories 
as described below. The aim is to provoke a re-evaluation of 
the roles of different layers of government, and to group 
together the government's major domestic benefits programs, 
reflecting their substantial and growing impact on the budget. 
Put another way, the format encourages lawmakers and the public 
to think differently about the budget by looking at it 
differently.
    The groupings are as follows:

    Principal Federal Responsibilities. The first grouping 
consists of those activities clearly associated with the 
national level of government. Everyone would place national 
defense and international affairs in this group, as directed by 
the Constitution itself. That simplistic division, however, 
fails to acknowledge several other categories for which the 
Federal Government also has the central responsibility. These 
include veterans' benefits (an aspect of the compensation for 
military service), Federal courts and law enforcement, and 
general government, the last of which mainly finances the 
Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government. 
Also included here are the Global War on Terrorism and Related 
Activities, which finance both military and diplomatic 
activities in the Middle East. The overall grouping, using the 
formal functional titles, is as follows:
     LNational Defense
     LInternational Affairs
     LThe Global War on Terrorism and Related 
Activities
     LVeterans Benefits and Services
     LAdministration of Justice
     LGeneral Government
     LGovernment-Wide Policy

    Domestic Priorities. This second set of functions draws 
together mainly the discretionary spending for activities that 
may be best administered or initiated by State and local 
governments or the private sector--and most of which would 
exist even if there were no Federal Government. This does not 
suggest they are of lesser priority; indeed, their importance 
is so immediate and direct that they benefit most from the 
initiative of those closest and most directly involved. This 
arrangement aims to encourage greater flexibility for States 
and localities and the private sector to drive these 
activities. (In the conventional format, these are Functions 
250 through 650.) Although the discussion here focuses on the 
discretionary spending in these categories, two sections--
Energy and Transportation--reflect both the discretionary and 
direct spending components. This is because in these areas, the 
two forms of spending are intertwined in ways unlike those of 
other functional categories.
     LGeneral Science, Space, and Technology
     LEnergy (both discretionary and direct)
     LNatural Resources and Environment
     LAgriculture
     LCommerce and Housing Credit
     LTransportation (both discretionary and direct)
     LCommunity and Regional Development
     LEducation, Training, Employment, and Social 
Services
     LHealth
     LIncome Security
     LOther Domestic Discretionary (mainly the 
administration of the Social Security and Medicare Programs)

    Direct (Mandatory) Spending Programs. This group reflects 
solely the direct spending components of Functions 250 through 
650 in the conventional format. The aim is to show the 
magnitude of these programs--mostly for social insurance and 
safety net programs--in the overall budget.
     LSocial Security
     LMedicare
     LMedicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and Related 
Programs
     LFarm Support
     LBanking, Housing, and the Postal Service
     LStudent Loans, Social Services, and Related 
Programs
     LIncome Support, Nutrition, and Related Programs
     LFederal Lands and Other Resources
     LOther Direct Spending (science, natural 
resources, and community and regional development)

    Financial Management (Functions 900, 920, and 950). This 
final grouping consists of those functions that round out the 
budget overall financing.
     LNet Interest
     LAllowances
     LUndistributed Offsetting Receipts
                   Principal Federal Responsibilities

                              ----------                              

    The two most obvious responsibilities of the national 
government are providing for the common defense of all the 
constituent States, and conducting diplomacy on behalf of the 
Nation as a whole. Related to these two is the supplemental 
spending for the Global War on Terrorism and Related 
Activities. As part of the compensation for military service, 
the government also offers a range of benefits specifically for 
veterans. The category called Administration of Justice mainly 
reflects funding for Federal law enforcement agencies--such as 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, and border security, among others--as well as 
the Federal judiciary. The vast majority of funding for the 
General Government function supports the Executive and 
Legislative Branches of the Federal Government. Included in 
this grouping as well are several government-wide savings 
policies.

                            NATIONAL DEFENSE


                            Function Summary

    Russian aggression, the growing threats of the Islamic 
State in the Middle East, North Korea's and Iran's nuclear and 
missile programs, and continued threats in the Asia-Pacific, 
including Chinese investments in high-end military capabilities 
and cyber warfare, shape the parameters of an increasingly 
complex and challenging security environment. As General 
Odierno, the current Chief of Staff of the Army, testified: 
``In my 38 years of service, I have never seen a more dynamic 
and rapidly changing security environment than the one we face 
now. We no longer live in a world where we have the luxury of 
time and distance to respond to threats facing our Nation. 
Instead, we face a diverse range of threats operating across 
domains and along seams--threats that are rapidly changing and 
adapting in response to our posture.''\23\ General Martin E. 
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified 
previously 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.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Testimony of General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the 
Army, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Impact of the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 and Sequestration on National Security,'' 28 
January 2015.
    \24\General Martin E. Dempsey, Testimony to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, 12 February 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Defense has carried the bulk of sequestration's 
effects after the enactment of the Budget Control Act [BCA]. 
Compared to the planned defense spending requested by then-
Secretary Robert M. Gates in 2011, the automatic enforcement 
procedures of the BCA through sequestered discretionary caps 
will cull almost $1 trillion in arbitrary defense cuts, 
resulting in erosion of critical warfighting capabilities, 
modernization, and readiness across all the services. Budgetary 
prescriptions have been shaping national defense strategy, 
resulting in higher risks for service members and the Nation.
    The United States faces serious, complex threats that grow 
more dangerous in the midst of uncertainty and doubts about the 
Nation's security posture. The President's fiscal year 2016 
budget compounds this uncertainty by irresponsibly ignoring 
current law and requesting a defense base budget $38 billion 
above the caps for rhetorical gain without a plan to avoid the 
BCA's guaranteed sequester.
    The House budget resolution, in contrast, prioritizes 
national defense and the needs of the warfighter by providing 
needed dollars through the creation of the deficit-neutral 
``Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund.'' In total with $90 
billion, the House Budget estimate for Overseas Contingency 
Operations funding for the Department of Defense [DOD], the 
fiscal year 2016 budget provides more than $613 billion total 
for defense spending--higher than the President's budget 
request for the fiscal year.
    The Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund provides the 
mechanism for Congress to responsibly allocate in a deficit-
neutral way the resources the military needs to secure the 
safety and liberty of U.S. citizens from threats at home and 
abroad. The Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund will 
provide the Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget the 
ability to increase allocations to support legislation that 
would provide for DOD warfighting capabilities, modernization, 
training and maintenance associated with combat readiness, 
activities to reach full auditability of DOD's financial 
statements, and/or implementation of military and compensation 
reforms.
    The legislative text includes a policy statement supporting 
National Defense and the need to replace the defense 
discretionary sequester. Ultimately, this budget fully supports 
U.S. troops, both at home and abroad, especially as the 
security environment becomes increasingly dangerous, complex 
and unpredictable. It is now more critical than ever to ensure 
the U.S. military has all the resources it needs as it 
continues to engage in ever-evolving threats in the Middle East 
and around the globe.
    The resolution specifies $531.3 billion in budget authority 
and $564.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2016, per current 
law (see Function 050 in the summary tables). These amounts 
include funding 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).
    Most defense funding comes through annually appropriated, 
or ``discretionary'' spending, which in this resolution totals 
$523.1 billion in budget authority and $555.7 billion in 
outlays in fiscal year 2016. This is the established level 
provided for in the Budget Control Act, as required by current 
law. Direct spending in 2016 for this category--which includes 
allowances, offsetting receipts and retirement payments--is 
$8.2 billion in budget authority and $8.3 billion in outlays in 
fiscal year 2016. The 10-year totals for budget authority and 
outlays are $6.3 trillion and $6.2 trillion, respectively.
    Funding for the Department of Defense's non-enduring 
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq is carried in a separate 
function called Global War on Terrorism and Related Activities/
Overseas Contingency Operations.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Policy development in this area rests with the Committee on 
Armed Services and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. 
They will develop the policies to maintain robust national 
defense capabilities while responsibly managing taxpayer 
resources. Some illustrative areas of particular concern 
include the following.

    Military Compensation and Benefits. The current 
compensation and benefits system for military personnel, 
retirees, and their families is unsustainable. In fiscal year 
2014, military pay and benefit costs, including health care 
costs and retirement accrual payments, represented 
approximately half of the DOD budget\25\ and, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, these costs are expected to rise. 
If personnel costs continue on the current trajectory, spending 
on military personnel compensation and benefits will consume 
the entire defense budget by 2039.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\``Pay & Benefit Costs FY14 Chart,'' Office of Secretary of 
Defense briefing to the House Armed Services Committee staff, 5 
February 2015.
    \26\Harrison, Todd. ``Rebalancing Military Compensation: An 
Evidence-Based Approach,'' Center for Strategic and Budgetary 
Assessments, 12 July 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This problem is compounded by the BCA spending caps running 
through 2021. Under current law, if compensation costs continue 
to grow as expected, they will inevitably crowd out critical 
defense spending on readiness and procurement. Recognizing this 
serious dilemma, the fiscal year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Act\27\ established the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission [MCRMC] to conduct a 
comprehensive review of military compensation and retirement 
systems and ultimately make recommendations to: ensure the 
long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force; enable quality 
of life for military personnel that fosters successful 
recruitment, retention, and careers; and modernize and achieve 
fiscal sustainability for the compensation and retirement 
systems.\28\ In January 2015, the MCRMC released its final 
report including significant military retirement and health 
care reforms. This budget encourages the committees of 
jurisdiction to consider such reforms to sustain the long-term 
fiscal health of these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Public Law 112-239, as amended by the Fiscal Year 2014 National 
Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 113-66.
    \28\Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 
112-239, 2 January 2013.

    Force Structure. Even with proposed increases to the 
Department's budget, the President continues with significant 
reductions to force structure, including cuts 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 noted, is extremely challenging 
and uncertain.
    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.

    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 prepared 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. As investments are made to equip, modernize and sustain 
the requirements of the armed services, there is a need to 
ensure such investments extend to Reserve and National Guard 
forces as well. These programs represent only some of the more 
prominent defense capabilities that will make claims on the 
defense-acquisition budget within the budget window.
    Defense acquisition has consistently exceeded planned 
budgets. In 2014, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 
reported that the total acquisition cost of DOD's fiscal year 
2013 portfolio of 80 programs grew by almost $13 billion, or 
about 1 percent, from the previous year. The budget encourages 
a continued review to improve the affordability of defense 
acquisition.

    Improving Defense Efficiency. The Department of Defense, 
like all government agencies, has a responsibility to the 
taxpayer to effectively manage the resources available to it.
    The Department should continue to focus its spending on 
activities that directly strengthen U.S. military capabilities, 
instead of compliance to arbitrary political goals, including 
greater renewable energy utilization. The DOD is required to 
obtain 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 
2025. The budget anticipates this mandate is repealed to allow 
the Services the flexibility to determine when and how 
renewable energy can be best used to meet strategic military 
objectives.
    The inability of the Defense Department to receive a clean 
audit degrades the public's confidence in the Department's 
ability to effectively manage taxpayer resources. As GAO noted 
in its 2015 High Risk List, as ``current budget constraints and 
fiscal pressures continue, the reliability of DOD's financial 
information and ability to maintain effective accountability 
for its resources will be increasingly important to the Federal 
Government's ability to make sound resource allocation 
decisions.'' DOD anticipates full auditability by the end of 
fiscal year 2017. The budget anticipates DOD's full attention 
to meeting its auditability goals and continued Department 
efforts to reduce waste and bureaucracy to effectively allocate 
existing resources.

                         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. Since 2001, funding for the international 
affairs base budget (excluding Global War on Terrorism/Overseas 
Contingency Operations funding) has increased by 45 percent, 
adjusting for inflation. Yet more spending has not yielded 
better results. Duplicative programs, programs unrelated to 
vital U.S. national interests, and inefficiencies are prevalent 
in the budget and should be addressed. This budget resolution 
represents a thorough re-evaluation of accounts in this 
category and prioritizes programs that are both integral to the 
core mission and that effectively and efficiently achieve 
desired outcomes.
    For this budget category (Function 150 in the summary 
tables), the budget resolution proposes a total of $38.3 
billion in budget authority and $42.9 billion in outlays for 
fiscal year 2016. This funding covers 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 [USAID]; and the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation. Over 10 years the budget totals are $427.6 billion 
in budget authority and $410.7 billion in outlays.
    The majority of the funding is discretionary spending, 
which is $38.9 billion in budget authority and $44.2 billion in 
outlays for fiscal year 2016. Direct spending in this 
function--totaling -$551 million in budget authority and -$1.3 
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2016--includes loan 
guarantee programs, payments to the Foreign Service Retirement 
and Disability Fund, and foreign-military sales programs. The 
negative figures reflect receipts from foreign-military sales 
and financing programs.
    As with National Defense, funding for the State Department 
and USAID's incremental, non-enduring civilian activities in 
the frontline states of the global war on terrorism is 
reflected in the Global War on Terrorism and Related 
Activities/Overseas Contingency Operations category.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    Committees of jurisdiction--the Committees on Foreign 
Affairs and Agriculture, as well as the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs--should continue effective oversight of international 
affairs programs to ensure that resources are used efficiently 
to achieve desired results that ultimately support U.S. 
national interests. While the final policy choices will lie 
with the committees, some options worthy of consideration might 
include the following.

    Reform International Food Aid. One of the areas where the 
international affairs budget fails to use taxpayer dollars 
efficiently and effectively is the U.S. international food aid 
program, including Food for Peace (Public Law 480 Title II), 
which provides emergency food assistance abroad and supports 
development programs in developing nations. Its failings result 
primarily from enduring program constraints, including the 
cargo preference (which dictates at least 50 percent of food 
aid must be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels). Other impediments 
include the requirement that 100 percent of food commodities be 
produced in the U.S., and monetization requirements, the 
practice of selling U.S. commodities on foreign markets to fund 
development projects. Several bipartisan efforts have called 
for reforming food aid programs. These include H.R. 1983, the 
Food Aid Reform Act sponsored by House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs Chairman Edward R. Royce (R-CA) and Representative 
Karen R. Bass (D-CA). Their measure would eliminate the U.S.-
only commodity requirement and allow USAID the flexibility to 
purchase local and regional commodities (known as Local and 
Regional Procurement, or LRP). According to the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, the average savings for local and regional 
procurement versus U.S. procurement and shipping is about 20 
percent.\29\ In 2015 Senators Robert P. Corker (R-Tenn.) and 
Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) reintroduced the Food for Peace 
Reform Act, which would eliminate monetization, allow for cost-
effective procurement, and provide shipping flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\``Food Aid Reform,'' House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2013, 
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sites/
republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/06-11-
13%20Food%20Aid%20Reform%20Fact%20Sheet%20PDF.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a 2011 Government Accountability Office 
report, Funding Development Projects through the Purchase, 
Shipment, and Sale of U.S. Commodities Is Inefficient and Can 
Cause Adverse Market Impacts, the practice of monetization 
loses an average of 25 cents of every dollar spent on food aid. 
In recent budget requests, the Obama Administration has also 
called for similar food aid reforms. The current food 
assistance program is not only a poor value for the taxpayer 
dollar, but could also actually harm the people it is trying to 
help, either by dumping U.S. products on local markets or by 
taking too long to get food to people in need. This budget 
therefore endorses the reforms highlighted above to get maximum 
benefit out of every dollar spent on this program.

    Reduce Funding for Broadcasting Board of Governors. This 
budget calls for overhauling the governing structure and 
organization of the Broadcasting Board of Governors [BBG], with 
a reduction in funds until such changes are made. The BBG, 
which became an independent entity in 1998, is responsible for 
directing and overseeing all U.S. international broadcasting 
services, such as Voice of America. BBG is mostly known for its 
programs that educate the world on American culture, society, 
and governance, in addition to promoting democratic principles 
such as human rights and religious freedom. While international 
broadcasts can be an effective tool in executing America's 
foreign policy objectives, the BBG fails to efficiently 
implement its mission due to egregious mismanagement, lack of 
accountability, and program overlap. According to Foreign 
Affairs Committee Chairman Royce: ``For many years, our 
international broadcasting has been broken and 
ineffective.''\30\ In July 2014, the House passed H.R. 4490, 
the United States International Communications Reform Act of 
2014, a bipartisan reform bill that addresses these problems to 
improve the management and effectiveness of BBG programs. In 
their fiscal year 2016 budget Views and Estimates letter, the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs reiterates the critical need 
to reform the BBG: ``Until the BBG structure is reformed, 
higher funding levels would simply lead to more wasteful 
spending and inefficient bureaucracy.''\31\ Consequently, this 
budget supports a reduction in funding for the BBG until 
significant reforms are made as to safeguard taxpayer dollars 
from continued waste at the hands of governmental 
mismanagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\House Committee on Foreign Affairs Press Release, ``Chairman 
Royce Applauds House Passage of Legislation to Reform U.S. 
International Broadcasting,'' 28 July 2014, http://
foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/chairman-royce-applauds-house-
passage-legislation-reform-us-international-broadcasting.
    \31\Letter to the House Committee on the Budget from the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 20 February 2015.

    Eliminate Contributions to the Clean Technology Fund and 
the 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 recommends eliminating 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 their mission is laudable, exchange programs 
are a non-essential component of the foreign-affairs budget and 
should be reduced accordingly. When reduction decisions for 
these accounts are made, the priority should go to programs 
that are in line with U.S. strategic interests and that receive 
matching foreign-government contributions, such as the 
Fulbright program.

    Reduce Contributions to International Organizations and 
Programs. The United States makes voluntary contributions to 
several multilateral organizations and programs. These 
contributions often duplicate 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. Further, United States contributions to the 
United Nations Development Program [UNDP], which has been 
flagged by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction [SIGAR] as problematic, flow through this 
account. According to SIGAR, UNDP's oversight and management of 
the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, to which the 
United States and other donors have contributed more than $3 
billion since 2002, is weak,\32\ making taxpayer dollars 
susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse. Although this budget 
fully funds the CIO account, it does not support voluntary 
contributions for the International Organizations and Programs 
account, including contributions to the UNDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Letter from John F. Sopko, Special Inspector General for 
Afghanistan Reconstruction, to Helen Clark, UNDP Administrator, 
September 12, 2014, http://www.sigar.mil/pdf/special%20projects/SIGAR-
14-98-SP.pdf.

    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, and the Asia Foundation. These institutions all engage 
in activities that overlap 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 [MCC]. Funding for 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. Such development assistance 
is worthwhile, however, 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 should 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.

      A willingness of the U.S. government to terminate 
assistance if an aid recipient starts to fail on these critical 
commitments.

      Country ownership, which requires the country to 
plan its own aid projects and lead implementation.

      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,'' in 
which countries are independently making reforms in favor of 
good governance, economic freedom, and other MCC requirements, 
to qualify for a compact. For example, in July 2007 the MCC 
signed a compact with Lesotho only after the country passed the 
Legal Capacity of Married Persons Act in 2006 that ensured 
married women, who had previously been legally categorized as 
minors, were granted basic economic, financial, and social 
rights.\33\ 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. It also generates the most benefits for the taxpayer 
dollar. For these reasons, this budget proposes MCC to be the 
lead agency on foreign-development assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Millennium Challenge Corporation, ``One Step Closer to 
Achieving Gender Equality in Lesotho,'' 2013, https://www.mcc.gov/
pages/press/story/story-one-step-closer-to-achieving-gender-equality-
in-lesotho.

    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.

THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM AND RELATED ACTIVITIES/OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                               OPERATIONS


                            Function Summary

    This function reflects non-enduring funding for the 
execution of Global War on Terrorism and other closely related 
activities, also known as Overseas Contingency Operations. The 
funding is entirely discretionary, with no direct spending 
components.
    This resolution calls for $94.0 billion in budget authority 
and $44.3 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2016 (shown in 
Function 970 in the summary tables). This function provides 
funding for Department of Defense military operations and for 
the incremental civilian activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, 
and Iraq led by the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for 
International Development [USAID].

                           Policy Assumptions

    Defense Activities. Russian aggression and the growing 
threats of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the 
Middle East shape the parameters of an increasingly complex and 
challenging security environment. Secretary of Defense Ashton 
B. Carter announced a review to consider slowing down the 
planned drawdown of U.S. troops in the Middle East. This 
resolution assumes $90.0 billion as a placeholder estimate of 
the budgetary resources necessary to fulfill the Department of 
Defense's war policy, with final decisions still pending 
assessment.
    Combined with the base resources for National Defense, the 
fiscal year 2016 budget provides more than $613 billion in 
total defense spending. The House budget resolution provides 
for higher total defense resources than the President's request 
in fiscal year 2016, the President's 5-year plan and the 
President's 10-year levels.

    Civilian Activities. This function also includes $4.0 
billion as a placeholder funding estimate for the activities of 
civilian agencies--primarily the State Department and the 
USAID--as part of the integrated civil-military strategy for 
securing American objectives in the frontline states.
    Funding provided in this budget, if enacted, will occur 15 
years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, 
which triggered wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consistent with 
the administration's plan, this budget supports phasing out the 
Global War on Terrorism and Related Activites/Overseas 
Contingency Operations designation for these programs and 
assumes a transition to base budget funds of any continuing aid 
in future years.
    In fiscal year 2015, Senate Democrats designated base 
requirements in the State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs appropriations bill as war funding to provide 
additional funding for non-defense discretionary programs under 
the spending cap. As part of a review of base requirements in 
cap adjusted funds, the House Budget Committee will direct the 
Government Accountability Office to conduct an extensive review 
of all cap adjusted activities.

                     VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES


                            Function Summary

    For years, bureaucratic mismanagement and continuous 
failure to provide veterans timely access to health care and 
benefits have plagued the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA]. 
In 2015, for the first time ever, VA health care was added to 
the High-Risk List of the Government Accountability Office 
[GAO]. According to GAO, ``these risks to the timeliness, cost-
effectiveness, quality, and safety of veterans' health care, 
along with other persistent weaknesses we have identified in 
recent years, raise serious concerns about VA's management and 
oversight of its health care system.''\34\ Management failures 
of the agency peaked when, in 2014, reports starting breaking 
across the Nation that VA medical centers were manipulating 
wait-list documents to hide long delays veterans faced before 
receiving health care. The VA hospital scandal led to the 
immediate resignation of then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
Eric K. Shinseki. In response to the scandal, the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs held several oversight hearings 
and ultimately enacted the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
Accountability Act of 2014 [VACAA]\35\ to address these 
problems. VACAA provided $15 billion in emergency resources to 
fund internal health care needs within the department and 
provided veterans enhanced access to private-sector health care 
under the new Veterans Choice Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, 
February 2015.
    \35\Public Law 113-146
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In its fiscal year 2016 budget, the President requests an 
increase of approximately $5 billion, or about 8 percent, above 
last year's levels for VA's discretionary budget, primarily for 
health care purposes. The justification for this request is 
inadequate. According to the bipartisan House Committee on 
Veterans' Affair fiscal year 2016 budget Views and Estimates 
letter, the Committee's ``understanding of VA's budget 
submission and resource needs is incomplete.''\36\ While the 
Veterans Affairs Committee supports the President's request at 
this time, they maintain ``the right to modify these views as 
more information becomes available.''\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Fiscal Year 2016 Views and 
Estimates, 20 February 2015.
    \37\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Congress continues to operate under discretionary 
spending caps pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, all 
agency budget submissions should receive congressional scrutiny 
to ensure that every taxpayer dollar requested is thoroughly 
justified and used effectively and efficiently. Exposing funds 
to mismanagement is not an option during times of fiscal 
restraint. Moreover, continuing to throw more money at a 
dysfunctional agency that refuses to be transparent and 
accountable, without significant reforms, is a disservice to 
all veterans who should be America's top priority.
    The Budget Committee will continue to closely monitor the 
VA's progress to ensure resources provided by Congress are 
sufficient and efficiently used to provide benefits and 
services to veterans.
    Funding for these activities is reflected in the Veterans 
Benefits and Services category (Function 700 in the summary 
tables). It includes resources for the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, which provides benefits to veterans, their families, 
and survivors who meet various eligibility rules. Benefit 
programs include veterans' medical care, disability 
compensation and pensions, education and rehabilitation 
benefits, and housing programs. While the vast majority of this 
function funds the VA, this category 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 resolution calls for $166.7 billion in budget authority 
and $170.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2016 for Veterans 
benefits and services. Discretionary spending is $68.6 billion 
in budget authority and $68.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 
2016. This spending level reflects the Congressional Budget 
Office's estimate of veterans discretionary programs needs for 
fiscal year 2016 and is a five percent increase above last 
year's level. Direct spending in 2016 is $98.1 billion in 
budget authority and $101.8 billion in outlays. The 10-year 
totals for budget authority and outlays are $1.8 trillion and 
$1.8 trillion respectively.
    Consistent with the administration's request, this 
resolution accommodates up to $63.3 billion for fiscal year 
2017 in discretionary advance appropriations for medical care, 
consistent with the Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform 
Transparency Act of 2009.
    Pursuant to the bipartisan House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs Views and Estimates letter, this budget calls for 
``modest savings proposals that have advanced out of the 
Committee on a bipartisan basis in past times of severe fiscal 
constraint.''\38\ An example might be extending the cost-of-
living adjustment [COLA] provision that would round down the 
annual growth in this tax-free benefit to the nearest whole 
dollar. This minor change has been included in several of 
President Obama's budget proposals, including the 
administration's request for fiscal year 2016. It was also 
included as a recommendation in the bipartisan House and Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committees' letter to the Joint Select 
Committee on Deficit Reduction in 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


                            Function Summary

    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. The reauthorization of the 
Department of Homeland Security, the first since the 
Department's creation in 2002, should be a top priority in the 
114th Congress. The Department needs clear guidance from 
Congress in facing the Nation's continuing security threats. 
This budget provides $52.2 billion in total budget authority 
and $56.1 billion in outlays focused on core Federal Government 
responsibilities and reducing duplication, excess, and 
unnecessary spending.
    According to the Government Accountability Office [GAO], 
from fiscal year 2005 through 2011, more than $30 billion was 
disbursed to more than 200 Department of Justice programs 
authorized through three sources: Community Oriented Policing 
Services, the Office of Justice Programs, and the Office on 
Violence Against Women.\39\ The GAO has determined that many of 
these grants were awarded without consideration of overlap or 
duplication with other grant programs, leading to significant 
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Government Accountability Office, 2012 Annual Report: 
Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 
Savings, and Enhance Revenue, February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The principal activities of the Administration of Justice 
category (Function 750 in the summary tables) include Federal 
law-enforcement programs, litigation and judicial activities, 
correctional operations, and border security. It includes most 
of the Department of Justice [DOJ] and several components of 
the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]. Other agencies 
funded here include Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug 
Enforcement Administration; 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.
    The vast majority of this category's funding is 
discretionary, provided by the Appropriations Subcommittees on 
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Activities, and Homeland 
Security. The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on 
Homeland Security have the main authorizing duties for this 
category. The resolution calls for $51 billion in discretionary 
budget authority and $51.3 billion in outlays for fiscal year 
2016. The small amount of direct spending in the category--
which funds certain immigration activities, the Crime Victims 
Fund, the Assets Forfeiture Fund, and the Treasury Forfeiture 
Fund among other functions--totals $1.1 billion in budget 
authority and $4.7 billion in outlays. The 10-year overall 
totals for the function are $602.1 billion in budget authority 
and $606.3 billion in outlays.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    In developing policies to meet their budget targets, the 
committees of jurisdiction cited above should give priority to 
those activities that are most essential for the Federal 
Government in this area. This does not necessarily require more 
funding in each area. It simply means addressing those Federal 
responsibilities first. 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 information technology 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 the District of Columbia since the 
Pentagon. Additionally, no funding shall be provided for the 
Office of Public Advocate, or any similar or successor 
position, in Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation. It is the duty of 
State and local governments to provide legal services to those 
individuals unable to provide it for themselves. Local 
jurisdictions are more in tune to their citizens' needs and can 
provide more responsive service than the Federal Government. 
Critics have argued that despite restrictions already in place 
upon the Legal Services Corporation, their activities too often 
focus on social activist causes rather than advocating for 
those needing legal help the most.

                            DIRECT SPENDING

    Extend Customs User Fees. Continuing the policy of the 
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2014, the 
budget assumes the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
continues to collect customs user fees through 2025. With the 
passage of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension 
Act of 2014, authority to collect these fees expires in 2024.

                           GENERAL GOVERNMENT


                            Function Summary

    A government that seeks greater efficiency in its programs 
should demand no less from its own operations. Yet many 
activities funded through the General Government category 
(Function 800 in the summary tables) have seen steady growth 
since 2008. Spending in this function has increased by roughly 
30 percent since fiscal year 2007.
    This category mainly provides funding for the Legislative 
and Executive Branches of the Federal Government. On the 
legislative side, these funds will support the operations of 
Congress, including the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Library of Congress, and the Government Accountability Office. 
In the executive branch, the category finances 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.
    Most of this funding will come through annual 
appropriations (discretionary spending), which in fiscal year 
2016 totals $16.7 billion in budget authority and $16.7 billion 
in outlays. Budget authority for direct spending in this area 
will total $6.9 billion, with $6.9 billion in accompanying 
outlays. Over 10 years, the budget anticipates $244.2 billion 
in total budget authority and $244.7 billion in outlays.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    The resolution aims to eliminate identified waste across 
all Federal Government branches and agencies. Funding for 
Federal operations and mismanagement of properties are just a 
few areas where savings should be achieved. These are the kinds 
of practical guidelines the committees of jurisdiction might 
apply in developing policies that might achieve these aims. 
This resolution also urges the Office of Management and Budget 
and relevant agencies to make the implementation of the data 
aggregation and transparency initiatives in the Digital 
Accountability and Transparency Act a top priority.
    Some options worthy of consideration are described below.

    Decrease Costs of the Government Printing Office [GPO] by 
Increasing the Use of Electronic Copies. The GPO prints 
thousands of pages of government documents each year--most of 
which have gained a ubiquitous online presence. This resolution 
supports greater selectivity in the material GPO prints, 
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 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 Internal Revenue Service 
[IRS] has more than 90,000 employees and spends in excess of 
$11 billion annually. Additionally, the Internal Revenue Code 
now contains approximately four million words, and each year 
taxpayers and businesses spend more than 6 billion hours 
complying with filing requirements.\40\ The ongoing 
investigation related to the IRS targeting American citizens 
demonstrates that the massive budget has not resulted in the 
IRS serving taxpayers better; rather, it has created a bloated 
bureaucracy with space for inefficiency and abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\National Taxpayer Advocate, ``2013 Annual Report to Congress,'' 
December 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's budget makes the tax code more complex and 
proposes to increase the IRS budget. This resolution calls for 
simplifying the burdensome tax code through tax reform (see the 
``Revenue and Tax Reform'' section of this report), 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 the tax code may reduce accidental errors in tax 
filing and improve voluntarily compliance.\41\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\GAO, ``Opportunities to Improve the Taxpayer Experience and 
Voluntary Compliance,'' April 2012.

    Scale Back Funding to the Legislative and Executive 
Branches. This budget aims to scale back government where it 
has expanded needlessly or beyond its proper role. That 
includes within government operations and offices themselves. 
The resolution recommends treating the Legislative and 
Executive branch appropriations no differently than the other 
Federal agencies and programs, and scaling back costs where 
possible.

                         GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY


                            Function Summary

    This category includes various policies that produce 
government-wide savings in multiple categories rather than in a 
single, specific budget function. The resolution calls for 
spending of $27.5 billion and $18.4 billion in budget authority 
and outlays, respectively, in fiscal year 2016. The 10-year 
totals for budget authority and outlay savings are -$496.9 
billion and -$418.2 billion, respectively. (The figures appear 
in Function 930 in the summary tables.) As is true elsewhere, 
specific policies will be determined by the appropriate 
committees of jurisdiction.

                      Illustrative Policy Options


                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    The total base discretionary budget authority for fiscal 
year 2016 assumed in the resolution is $1.016 trillion--the 
same level required by the discretionary spending caps within 
the Budget Control Act [BCA] and the automatic enforcement 
procedures established by that law. The resolution offers 
approximately $31.4 billion in fiscal year 2016 non-defense 
discretionary savings in several budget functions should 
Congress choose to enact additional deficit reduction that 
year. Because these additional savings would cause the 
resolution to display a lower total base discretionary level 
than contemplated by the BCA, $31.4 billion in non-defense 
discretionary spending is added back to Function 930 to make 
the total budget-resolution base discretionary level match the 
amount specified in the BCA.
    Over the 10-year budget window, the resolution assumes 
$392.6 billion in savings beyond what is contemplated in the 
BCA. Much of these assumed savings can be accomplished by the 
illustrative policy options presented in the various budget 
function summaries in this report. Additional illustrative 
options to achieve further discretionary savings are presented 
below.

    Federal-Employee Attrition. The budget includes 
discretionary savings by assuming a 10-percent reduction in 
certain agencies of 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. This 
could save up to $59 billion over 10 years.

    Reform Civil Service Pensions. The policy described in the 
Income Security section 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.

                            DIRECT SPENDING

    Reduce Improper Payments/Program Integrity. This budget 
calls for 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, 
Unemployment Insurance programs, the Earned Income Tax Credit, 
and other programs. By ensuring that all benefits are targeted 
toward the appropriate households, this budget will reduce 
fraud and improper payments in these programs. This could save 
up to $33 billion over 10 years--about the same amount 
identified in the President's budget.

    Align the G-Fund Investment Return with an Appropriate Risk 
Profile. The resolution assumes savings by correctly aligning 
the rate of return on U.S. Treasury securities within the 
Federal Employee Retirement System's Thrift Savings Plan with 
its investment risk profile. Securities within the G-Fund are 
not subject to risk of default. Payment of principal and 
interest is guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Yet the interest 
rate paid is equivalent to a long-term bond. As a result, those 
who participate in the G Fund are rewarded with a long-term 
rate on what is essentially a short-term security. This could 
save up to $32 billion over 10 years.

    Assume Savings in Budget Control Act Continue. The BCA 
established an automatic enforcement mechanism--commonly known 
as a sequester--to ensure a promised level of savings from that 
law was actually realized. These savings were first implemented 
in 2013 and are scheduled to last through 2024. The resolution 
proposes to extend the savings created by the BCA for an 
additional year, although the budget calls on Congress to 
replace the automatic sequester with specific, targeted 
reforms.
                          Domestic Priorities

                              ----------                              

    The budget resolution provides funding for a range of 
priority activities and services that are domestic in nature. 
Although all of them are of national importance--that is why 
they appear in the Federal budget in the first place--they bear 
a special connection to the States and localities that 
constitute the Nation, as well as the vast array of non-
government institutions throughout the country. K-12 education, 
for instance, is a quintessentially local priority. Because 
most Americans do most of their traveling in or near their own 
communities, their own roads and bridges are a fundamental 
local concern. Health care is provided mainly through local 
hospitals and private physicians. All these activities, and 
many others, would exist even if there were no Federal 
Government. Washington did not create them; States and 
localities and the private sector did. These are also the main 
sources of the initiative and creativity that drives these 
domestically centered arrangements. The concept of federalism 
on which America was founded recognizes that fact, and 
encourages the diversity of approaches best furnished by layers 
of government or non-government institutions closer to the 
people served. In grouping these activities together, the 
discussion below seeks to encourage greater flexibility for 
States and localities and the private sector to find new, 
better, and more efficient ways to provide these services. 
While the Federal Government can help in these areas, its role 
should be to support, not to dominate.
    The activities presented here are mainly the discretionary 
spending components in Function 250 through 650 in the 
conventional budget format. In two areas, however--Energy 
(Function 270) and Transportation (Function 400)--both the 
discretionary and direct spending components are presented. 
This is because in these two categories, discretionary and 
direct spending are uniquely intertwined.

                 GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    The largest component of this category--about half of total 
spending--is for the space-flight, research, and supporting 
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
[NASA]. The function also contains general science funding, 
including the budgets for the National Science Foundation [NSF] 
and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
    The budget resolution 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 
science, technology, engineering, and math [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 the Nation's scientific and educational 
base.
    The vast majority of this category's funding is 
discretionary, provided by the House Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology and the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Activities. The 
resolution calls for $28.3 billion in discretionary budget 
authority and $28.9 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2016.The 
10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $312.1 
billion and $308.2 billion, respectively.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    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 
2015, an enacted level of $64.8 billion dollars was dedicated 
to research government-wide. More than 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. In addition, the 
National Science Foundation has been criticized in the past for 
grants financing studies such as teaching mountain lions to use 
a treadmill, the creation of a new communication network for 
fossil enthusiasts, and a study on perceived gender bias on 
Wikipedia. The resolution's levels support preserving the 
Federal scientific community's original role as a venue for 
groundbreaking discoveries and a driver of innovation and 
economic growth, while responsibly paring back applied and 
commercial research and development.

    Reduce Expenses for the Department of Homeland Security'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.

                                 ENERGY


                            Function Summary

    The Obama Administration incorrectly believes that climate 
change is a greater threat to Americans than terrorism,\42\ 
which may be why the administration wastes billions of taxpayer 
dollars annually subsidizing green energy projects. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office's fiscal year 2016 baseline, 
the administration is expected to spend more than $4.2 billion 
on energy conservation efforts and research, development and 
commercialization of low or zero carbon energy sources.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Brian Hughes, ``Josh Earnest: Climate Change a greater threat 
to Americans than terrorism,'' NewsFeeding.Net, 10 February 2015.
    \43\Budget run of CBO's FY 2016 Baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as troubling as the administration's wasteful 
subsidization of green energy projects is the President's 
recent veto of bipartisan legislation to develop the Keystone 
XL pipeline. This legislation would expand existing pipeline 
that runs from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin through 
the southern United States to provide more economically 
efficient transportation of oil. A January 2014 report prepared 
by the U.S. Department of State concluded that a total of 
42,100 jobs throughout the United States would be supported by 
the construction of the proposed pipeline.
    Meanwhile, from 2009 to 2013, The White House provided more 
than $67 billion in subsidies to green energy companies through 
tax credits and loan guarantees alone.\44\ Despite the 
excessive subsidies, solar power and wind energy combined only 
grew from 0.9 percent to 2 percent of domestic energy 
consumption over the same time period.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Terry M. Dinan, ``CBO Testifies on Federal Financial Support 
for Fuels and Energy Technologies,'' Congressional Budget Office, 13 
March 2013.
    \45\Energy Information Administration, ``Primary Energy Consumption 
by Source.'' http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/
sec1_7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.\46\ 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.\47\ 
This is particularly problematic, because unlike the private 
sector where the company would eventually be required to 
account to its investors for these payouts, taxpayers have no 
way of holding the Federal Government accountable for each 
investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Sandoval, Michael, ``Bankrupt Abound Solar to Bury Unused Solar 
Panels in Cement,'' The Heritage Foundation, 26 February 2013.
    \47\Paul Chesser, ``A123's Executives Get Their Richly Undeserved 
Bonuses,'' National Legal and Policy Center, 13 November 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    None of this is to say that the search for newer 
technologies and low-carbon sources of energy is without 
merit--only that these activities are best suited for the 
private sector. This administration prefers to pick winners and 
losers in the market, which crowds out disfavored energy 
sources even if they are more reliable and come at 
significantly lower costs. The President was so concerned about 
low cost energy pushing consumers away from his preferred, more 
expensive options that he named Steven Chu as his first 
Secretary of energy less than a year after Chu said: 
``[s]omehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of 
gasoline to the levels in Europe.''\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Neil King Jr. and Stephen Power, ``Times Tough for Energy 
Overhaul,'' The Wall Street Journal, 12 December 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After 6 years, the verdict is in: increased oil and natural 
gas production by private sector companies on private land has 
made the U.S. the world's number one energy producer, while at 
least $67 billion of taxpayer money later, the Nation is no 
closer to cost-effective zero carbon energy. Technological 
breakthroughs will continue to occur, such as the combination 
of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the mid-
2000s, but the Federal Government must resist the temptation to 
intervene at taxpayers' expense.
    Discretionary spending in this category includes some of 
the civilian energy and environmental programs of the 
Department of Energy [DOE]. It also includes funding for the 
basic operations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A large 
majority of the DOE discretionary budget is allocated to 
commercial and applied research and development [R&D] for new 
energy technologies--activities that are better left to the 
private sector. It also includes Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability, as well as operations and maintenance 
accounts for some of DOE's direct spending programs, like the 
Power Marketing Administrations.
    According the National Science Foundation [NSF], private 
sector companies in the U.S. spent more than $302 billion on 
R&D in 2012. While these efforts focus on more than just 
energy, detailed NSF surveys indicate that funding for more 
efficient fuel consumption, electric vehicles, energy 
efficiency, and fossil fuel R&D total billions of dollars of 
private sector capital per year. As a result, DOE's research 
and development should focus solely on breakthrough 
innovations. This is the principal aim of the budget 
resolution's $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2016 budget authority. 
Related outlays are and $2.4 billion.
    Direct spending in this category includes the remaining 
civilian energy and environmental programs of the DOE. It also 
includes the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of 
Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA], and the 
Federal Energy 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.)
    For fiscal year 2016, the budget resolution provides $2.1 
billion in discretionary budget authority, with $2.4 billion in 
related outlays (shown in Table 2, Function 270). Direct 
spending figures (shown in Table 3, Function 270) are -$5.6 
billion in budget authority and -$1.8 billion in outlays. The 
negative balances reflect the incoming repayment of loans and 
receipts from the sale of electricity produced by Federal 
entities, which are accounted for as ``negative spending,'' as 
well as rescissions of unobligated balances in green energy 
loan programs. Over 10 years, the resolution provides 
discretionary budget authority of $23.2 billion and $24.4 
billion in outlays. Ten-year totals for direct spending are 
-$17.3 billion in budget authority and -$19.7 billion in 
outlays.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    In the House, discretionary spending energy programs 
(Function 270 in Table 2) fall under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Funding for these programs 
comes from the Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water 
Development, and Related Agencies, and Interior, Environment, 
and Related Agencies. They will determine specific policy 
options to meet the budget's fiscal guidelines.
    A central aim of their policies should be to ensure that 
private sector capital is not crowded out by government 
overreach and bureaucratic waste. They should also protect 
taxpayers from poor government decision-making that wastes 
Federal dollars and increases energy prices. Finally, 
streamlining R&D activities across the Department of Energy 
will increase efficiency and consolidate operations, leading to 
reduced costs. The following illustration reflects this 
approach.

    Reduce Funding for Commercial Research and Development. The 
resolution supports maintaining current funding levels for 
basic R&D activities within the DOE, while significantly 
reducing funding for applied R&D. Focusing on basic R&D will 
allow DOE to zero in on cutting edge discoveries that may lead 
to major improvements in the society, such as the internet, 
while leaving research on the application and commercialization 
of new technologies to the private sector.

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options

    In the process of transforming policy in this area, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce can be guided in part by 
seeking to reverse the damage caused by the excesses of the 
administration's energy policies. They can also evaluate each 
program's merit by asking a simple question: If this program 
did not exist, would there be a private sector industry or 
entity that would fund similar activities? If the answer is 
``yes,'' the program should be viewed as ripe for reform, or 
even elimination. The options below indicate some possible 
directions.

    Rescind Unobligated Balances from Stimulus Green Energy 
Programs. The budget recommends rescinding unobligated balances 
in DOE's loan portfolio. Since 2009, these programs have 
spawned numerous failures, such as Solyndra and Abound Solar. 
The government cannot undo the harm that has been done or 
reclaim taxpayer dollars from failed entities, but it can 
reclaim all of the spending authority the administration has 
not yet obligated to ensure that taxpayers are not exposed to 
further risk for renewable-energy projects that would not 
otherwise be market-viable.

    Rescind Funding for Biomass Research & Development. The 
Biomass Research and Development program is a joint initiative 
of Department of Agriculture and DOE, intended to ``carry out 
research on and development and demonstration of (A) biofuels 
and biobased products; and (B) the methods, practices, and 
technologies, for the production of biofuels and biobased 
products.''\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``Biomass Research and 
Development Initiative Competitive Grants Program.'' https://
www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=core&id= 
416c795f6d234174f72d346d328d0464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unreasonable mandates in the Renewable Fuel Standard have 
already forced private sector gasoline refiners and importers 
to spend billions of dollars of their own money to assist 
uneconomic biofuels in getting to market. Adding millions of 
dollars of taxpayer funds only perpetuates the problem and 
exposes taxpayers to the financial burdens.

    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. The budget rescinds the 
program's unobligated funds, saving taxpayers more than a 
billion dollars.

                   NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    America's bountiful environment--her breathtaking parks and 
forests, diverse wildlife, rivers and lakes, and land, water, 
and mineral resources--represent an extraordinary national 
heritage worthy of preservation and responsible stewardship. 
Yet over the years the Federal Government has contorted the 
aims of preservation into a justification for ever more 
centralized regulation.
    For instance, the primary role of the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] is to ensure that the air Americans 
breathe and the water they drink is clean and unpolluted. For 
too long, however, rather than prioritizing human health and 
the environment, the EPA has viewed itself as an energy policy 
authority, regulating low-cost, reliable energy sources out of 
the market and mandating increased use of uncompetitive and 
less reliable ones.
    The Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan, which not only 
regulates power plants but also expands EPA's reach into State 
power markets generally, is a perfect example. EPA estimates 
the plan will cost energy providers up to $8.8 billion in 
annual compliance costs by 2030, a large share of which will 
likely be passed on to taxpayers in the form of higher energy 
prices. Private researchers believe the impact could be even 
more profound, because EPA did not include the costs of new 
transmission infrastructure, intermittent resource integrations 
or the costs of stranded assets in their estimate. The budget 
recommends withholding any funding to implement this program as 
well as other unnecessary, costly regulatory regimes, such as 
the soon-to-be-proposed ozone standards and the stream buffer 
rule.
    The National Association of Manufacturers released a study 
earlier this year indicating that tightening the ozone standard 
to 65 parts per billion, the low end of the range being 
considered by the EPA, could cut U.S. gross domestic product by 
$140 billion per year.\50\ Similarly, the stream buffer rule 
would cause a dramatic decline in domestic coal production, 
which according to a 2012 study released by the National Mining 
Association, will cause between $14 billion and $20 billion per 
year in lost production.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\NERA Economic Consulting, Economic Impact of a 65 ppb National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone, February 2015.
    \51\Economic Analysis of Proposed Stream Protection Rule Stage I 
Report, Environ International Corporation, 5 March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget focuses on paring back unnecessary spending 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. Pursuant to these guidelines, the resolution 
provides $34.4 billion in discretionary budget authority for 
fiscal year 2016, with $36.8 billion in related outlays (see 
Function 300 in Table 2). These funds will finance programs 
within the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and 
Transportation, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA].
    Some of the larger spending programs subject to 
appropriations are the EPA's clean water and drinking water 
programs, as well as the agency's environmental programs and 
management account, the Army Corps construction, operations and 
maintenance accounts, accounts responsible for operation of the 
National Park Service and the Wildland Fire Management accounts 
in the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior.
    The Forest Service and the Interior Department have used a 
large amount of their overall budget allocations toward 
wildfire suppression in the Western region of the U.S. The 
frequency and severity of these wildfires pose a risk to the 
citizens, water, and wildlife of the region. Borrowing for 
wildfires is detrimental to the long-term planning of these 
agencies. This budget acknowledges the need to minimize the 
adverse effects of fire transfers on the budget of other fire 
and non-fire programs, and the necessity to responsibly budget 
for wildfires.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    While the actual policies will be determined by the 
committees of jurisdiction--the House Committee on Natural 
Resources is the primary authorizer and the House Committee on 
Appropriations' Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development, 
and Related Agencies, and Interior, Environment and Related 
Agencies are responsible for annual funding--they may be guided 
by the budget's effort to focus on core government activities 
and reduce duplication and waste. Options that may help meet 
budget targets include those described below.

    Bring Numerous Environmental Programs in Line with the 
President's Request. The Obama Administration has made repeated 
attempts to increase EPA funding, but even the administration 
has identified areas where funding could be reduced. The budget 
reduces funding for numerous environmental programs down to the 
level requested by the administration.

    Cut Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. An examination of the Citizens 
Against Government Waste Pig Book, Senator Coburn's Wastebook, 
numerous Government Accountability Office and Inspector General 
reports, and documents provided by other House committees 
exposes numerous instances of waste, fraud, and abuse that can 
be removed from the Federal ledger. The most offensive example 
is providing pay for EPA employees suspended for numerous 
reasons, including watching pornography during work hours.

    Streamline Climate-Change Activities Across Government. 
This budget resolution reduces spending for numerous climate-
change-related activities within this function, primarily by 
reducing overlapping or unproductive policies. It also 
recommends better coordination of programs and funds to 
eliminate duplicative and unnecessary spending.

                              AGRICULTURE


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    Discretionary funding in the agricultural function supports 
agricultural research, education, and economics, funding for 
direct and guaranteed farm operating and ownership loans, 
operating budgets of the Farm Service Agency, Foreign 
Agricultural Service, and Risk Management Agency, marketing and 
information services, animal and plant health inspection 
services, Department of Agriculture administration, and a 
variety of other programs and activities.
    The budget provides for discretionary spending in the 
agriculture function in fiscal year 2016 of $6.1 billion in 
budget authority and $6.0 billion in outlays. The budget 
assumes discretionary spending of $69.0 billion in budget 
authority and $68.0 billion in outlays in this area over the 10 
years covering 2016-25 (Function 350, Table 2).

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    Funding for discretionary programs and activities in this 
function will be determined by the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. The budget 
recommends that a higher priority be given to competitive 
grant-based agricultural research. This type of research 
funding, in contrast to formula-based and other types, is most 
likely to spur agricultural productivity growth, which is 
important to enhancing the international competiveness of U.S. 
agriculture over the longer term. Also, continued attention 
should be given to streamlining and, where possible, 
consolidating operations and activities across U.S. Department 
of Agriculture agencies, including in its large network of 
county field offices.

                      COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    Supporting commerce--maintaining an environment that allows 
ingenuity and free enterprise to flourish--is a worthy and 
important role of government. This includes providing necessary 
oversight and regulation of business and commerce. As in many 
other areas, however, the Federal Government has too often 
taken the approach that more money, more red tape, and more 
bureaucracy can answer every problem. A fundamental government 
role is to maintain competitive markets that encourage 
innovation and creativity, promote efficiency, and, thus, 
stimulate an expanding range of products and services at lower 
costs for consumers.
    One example is the recent ruling of the Federal 
Communications Commission [FCC] to re-classify the Internet as 
a telecommunications service, rather than an information 
service, pursuant to the highly regulatory Title II of the 1934 
Communications Act. The reclassification empowers the 
government to regulate rates and prioritize content, which will 
inevitably lead to increased fees and taxes on the consumer. 
This budget rejects the FCC's ``Net Neutrality'' rules and 
generally opposes the government's attempt to intervene in the 
free market.
    This resolution envisions a Federal system that supports 
commerce and regulates in an efficient manner, providing 
sufficient oversight where necessary without wasting taxpayer 
monies or stifling free enterprise. Additionally, as it is 
risky for the Federal Government to be in the business of 
picking winners and losers, subsidies to commercial entities 
should be minimized where possible.
    These kinds of activities on the Federal level are 
supported through the Commerce and Housing Credit category 
(Function 370 in the summary tables), where the government 
funds programs through the Departments of Commerce and Housing 
and Urban Development. Entities funded with discretionary 
dollars in this function include the Patent and Trademark 
Office, the majority of the Small Business Administration, and 
regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange 
Commission.
    On a unified basis, for fiscal 2016, the budget resolution 
provides -$13.1 billion in discretionary budget authority and 
-$12.8 billion in outlays (Table 2). The negative discretionary 
budget authority and outlay figures mainly reflect the subsidy 
rates applied to certain loan and loan guarantee programs 
scored under the guidelines of the Federal Credit Reform Act, 
such as Federal Housing Administration and Government National 
Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) programs. This accounting 
method is further discussed in the section of this report 
titled ``Banking, Commerce, Postal Service, and Related 
Programs.''

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    The main committees responsible for funding programs in 
this area are the Committee on Financial Services, Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform (U.S. Postal Service). As they make final 
policy determinations, the committees of jurisdiction should 
aim to reduce unwarranted subsidies to big businesses, reform 
inefficient government bureaucracy, and create a climate that 
supports rather than stifles commerce and free enterprise. 
Options worthy of consideration include those cited below.

    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 10 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. These services 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 should 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, the Securities 
and Exchange Commission [SEC] now has more than 4,000 
employees. Although its funding has grown by more than 60 
percent since 2007, the President has consistently requested 
additional increases in his annual budget submission. This 
resolution questions the premise that more funding for the SEC 
means better, smarter regulation, and recommends reforming the 
agency so it can perform its duties more efficiently.
    Another example is the Federal Trade Commission's budget, 
which has increased 50 percent since 2008. This budget calls 
for assessing the ever-growing budgets of Federal agencies, 
determining what levels are necessary to effectively and 
efficiently execute their missions, and adjusting funding 
accordingly.

                             TRANSPORTATION


                            Function Summary

    Congress created the Highway Trust Fund in 1956 (under the 
Highway Revenue Act) as a mechanism to ensure that the revenue 
raised from gasoline taxes would ``not be diverted'' to 
purposes other than the interstate highway system. In recent 
years, however, the trust fund has consistently spent beyond 
its own resources, requiring infusions of additional cash from 
general revenues.
    Federal motor fuel taxes, at 18.4 cents per gallon for 
gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel, have not changed 
since 1993. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] projects new 
Federal fuel-economy standards will further reduce revenue by 
21 percent in 2040 when they are fully phased in. To illustrate 
the effect of a 21-percent drop, the CBO estimates that if all 
cars on the road now met the stricter efficiency standards, it 
would mean a $57-billion cumulative reduction in revenue 
between now and 2022.
    Though gas-tax receipts have plateaued, spending continues 
to grow. From 1999-2008, outlays outpaced receipts in the trust 
fund on average by almost $1 billion a year. The spending-
revenue gap has further deteriorated under the current 
administration, widening to more than $9 billion a year. Over 
the next decade, the CBO anticipates the discrepancy will 
continue expanding under current spending levels and policy 
from $12 billion in annual cash deficits in fiscal year 2015 to 
$164 billion in fiscal year 2024.\52\ Spending has also been 
diverted to non-highway projects, such as bike trails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\Congressional Budget Office, The Highway Trust Fund and the 
Treatment of Surface Transportation Programs in the Federal Budget, 
June 2014: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45416-
TransportationScoring.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continuing on the present course will lead to one of two 
outcomes. Under current law, the Highway Trust Fund cannot 
incur negative balances, so spending will automatically 
decrease and the Department of Transportation [DOT] will have 
to ration and delay reimbursements to States to maintain a 
``prudent balance'' in the fund. Alternately, Congress will 
need to provide additional bailouts (i.e. transfers from the 
general fund) with borrowed funds.
    The corrosion of the Highway Trust Fund is a major concern 
reflected in the Transportation category of the budget 
(Function 400 in the summary tables). The function also 
includes ground, air, water, and other transportation funding. 
The major agencies and programs within this function are 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 [TSA], and the U.S. Coast Guard); the 
aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; and the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation, or Amtrak.
    For these programs and agencies, the budget resolution 
calls for $37 billion in budget authority and $79 billion in 
outlays in fiscal year 2016. Discretionary budget authority in 
2016 is $31 billion, with outlays of $78 billion (see Table 2); 
direct spending is $6 billion in budget authority and $1 
billion in outlays (Table 3). Over 10 years, budget authority 
totals $742 billion, with outlays of $781 billion.
    The large discrepancy between discretionary 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, while outlays--controlled by annual limitations on 
obligations set in appropriations acts--are treated as 
discretionary spending. Because of this unique budgeting 
regime, the discussion below examines both categories of 
transportation spending.
    Basic transportation policies in this area fall under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 
Agencies. Policies for the Transportation Security 
Administration and Federal Air Marshals are determined by the 
Committee on Homeland Security and the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security. These committees will 
determine the policy choices in their jurisdictions.
    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.

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options

    Ensure the Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway 
Trust Fund [HTF] has required large general fund contributions 
totaling $63.1 billion since 2008. In addition, $27.5 billion 
was provided in the 2009 stimulus bill to the Federal Highway 
Administration. Though it included some needed reforms, the 
most recent surface transportation reauthorization bill, the 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act [MAP-21], 
included $18.8 billion in general fund transfers, although the 
amount was offset for the first time in the history of surface 
transportation authorization bills. The budget resolution once 
again includes a reform to ensure that any future general fund 
transfer to the HTF is fully offset.
    Despite these large recent infusions, CBO estimates the 
Highway Trust Fund still faces insolvency by the end of fiscal 
year 2015 under current law. Instead of continuing to rely on 
general-fund transfers, 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.
    With the Highway Trust Fund projected by CBO to run 
negative balances in fiscal year 2016 under current levels of 
spending, existing law and cash-management practices would 
force the Department of Transportation to limit payments. 
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. The budget also includes 
a provision to ensure any future general-fund transfers will be 
fully offset, while at the same time providing flexibility 
through a deficit-neutral reserve fund for a surface-
transportation reauthorization.
    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 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
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 fuel taxes, 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.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    Eliminate Funding for Amtrak Operating Subsidies. The 
budget supports eliminating operating subsidies that have 
insulated 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.

    Eliminate TIGER Grants. The Transportation Investment 
Generating Economic Recovery [TIGER] Program was a stimulus 
bill measure established as a competitive grant program. Though 
the program was intended to drive funding to critical 
transportation needs for the country, however, more than 60 
percent of the grants support local transit or enhancement 
projects. With grantee selection based on unclear metrics, 
including ``livability,'' the Department of Transportation has 
failed to provide more information to the public regarding 
documentation of its review process as requested by the 
Government Accountability Office.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\See ``Eliminate TIGER Program,'' by the Reason Foundation, 17 
February 2015: http://reason.org/news/show/eliminate-tiger-program.

    Reductions in Transportation Security Agency Funding. 
Enhanced operational efficiencies can be obtained without 
compromising security priorities. The budget maintains the 
efficiencies realized through risk-based security initiatives 
and encourages TSA to continue to look for new approaches to 
airport security. The budget also offers continued support for 
the Screening Partnership Program, TSA's privatized screening 
program. 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 on non-essential 
transportation programs.

                   COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    Federal funding for economic and community development in 
both urban and rural areas appears in this category. It 
includes 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, as well as 
part of the funding for the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency.
    While supporting these programs related to emergency 
preparedness and critical needs, this resolution urges 
streamlining non-essential community and regional initiatives 
that are not core functions of the Federal Government.
    The majority of this category's funding is discretionary 
and provided by the Appropriations Subcommittees on Financial 
Services; Energy and Water; Agriculture; Interior, Environment, 
and Related Agencies; and Homeland Security. Relevant 
authorizing committees for this category include the Financial 
Services Committee, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and the Committee on Homeland Security.
    The resolution calls for $7 billion in discretionary budget 
authority and $19.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2016. The 
10-year totals for discretionary budget authority and outlays 
are $76.2 billion and $115.4 billion, respectively. The large 
gap between budget authority and outlays in the function totals 
and discretionary levels results mainly from the spend-out of 
budget authority provided in the stimulus bill.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

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

    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 is the Community 
Development Fund [CDF]. Historically, about 80 percent to 90 
percent of funding for the CDF is spent on the Community 
Development Block Grant program [CDGB]. CDBG is an annual 
formula grant directed to State and local governments to 
address a broad array of initiatives. In 2015, $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 Department of Homeland Security Urban Area Security 
Initiative Grants to Tier 1 Cities. Urban Area Security 
Initiative grants to more than 30 cities have not produced 
measurable results for the most critical cities. This option 
would limit the grants to Tier 1, or the top 10 cities, on a 
risk-based formula basis.

    Federal Emergency Management Agency Reforms. The budget 
supports implementation of Federal Emergency Management Agency 
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 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.\54\ 
The past 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``Disaster Declarations by 
Year,'' Feb. 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When disaster relief decisions are not made judiciously, 
limited resources are diverted away from communities that are 
truly in need.
    This budget supports Government Accountability Office 
recommendations and takes a closer look at: (1) reducing 
Federal expenditures by updating disaster-declaration-
eligibility indicators--such as 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 such as 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.

                    EDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT,
                          AND SOCIAL SERVICES


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    One of the Federal Government's most important goals should 
be creating and supporting a climate of opportunity for all 
Americans. A key component of this endeavor is ensuring that 
all Americans have access to a high-quality education. 
Additionally, a well-educated workforce is one of the key 
drivers of strong economic growth.
    Thus, education is a national priority, and of great 
interest to Washington policymakers. The question is how best 
to advance it. In recent years, the primary approach to 
furthering educational opportunity has been through creating 
more Federal programs and spending more dollars. While pursued 
with the best of intentions, the approach also has stripped 
local entities of the opportunity to make decisions about how 
educational systems and programs will be measured. Higher 
spending has not led to higher achievement.
    Principally, Federal support for K-12 education--which 
constitutes roughly 40 percent of the discretionary funding in 
this category (Function 500 in Table 2 of this report)--should 
aim to do just that: It should support, not seize control from 
State and local entities. Real gains in education result from 
the diversity and creativity of State and local educators, and 
the trend toward centralizing rules and standards in Washington 
risks smothering effectiveness and innovation. This does not 
mean the Federal Government has no interest in education. It 
means only that Washington should focus on supporting the 
initiatives of local educators, not dictating them.
    In addition to high-quality educational opportunities, 
Americans of all ages must have access to skills- and job-
training that will equip them to compete in the rapidly 
changing global economy. Federal training programs--also a 
major component of discretionary funding in this function--are 
notorious for their failure as well as their duplication. As 
described further below, dozens of Federal training programs 
have created a labyrinth of bureaucracy that consistently fails 
to result in substantial numbers of job placements. In addition 
to reforming training programs so they serve Americans more 
effectively, Congress must make every dollar count by 
eliminating wasteful, duplicative, and ineffective programs.
    For fiscal 2016, the budget resolution in this category 
provides $86.2 billion in discretionary budget authority and 
$91.3 billion in outlays, which primarily goes to the 
Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    The main committees responsible for funding programs in 
this area are the Committee on Education and the Workforce and 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies. They will make final 
policy determinations for discretionary funding, and should aim 
to support America's students and workforce without 
overstepping the Federal Government's boundaries or usurping 
power from State and local entities. Options worthy of 
consideration include the following.

    Reform Job-Training Programs. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics reports that 8.7 million Americans are unemployed. 
Yet they also report 4.9 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. In the 113th Congress, the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce made laudable progress toward consolidating these 
programs with enactment of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act.
    This budget builds on these efforts by calling for further 
consolidation of duplicative Federal job-training programs and 
improved coordination of job training programs with the 
recently reformed workforce development system. This budget 
will also improve these programs' accountability by tracking 
the types of training provided, the costs 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 will improve access, choice, and 
flexibility to enable workers and job seekers to respond 
quickly and effectively to whatever specific career challenges 
they face. In addition, the budget recommends a 15-percent 
State flexibility allotment under the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act.

    Make the Pell Grant Program Sustainable. After years of 
decisions to raise the Pell Grant award levels, the program is 
now facing a shortfall. Instead of confronting the program's 
cost drivers, previous Congresses began to increasingly rely on 
mandatory funding to solve its discretionary shortfalls. 
Instead of making necessary, long-term reforms, lawmakers 
repeatedly resorted to short-term funding patches--a temporary 
answer that will not prevent another severe funding cliff for 
the program in the future.
    The reforms should enable the program to continue helping 
low-income students gain access to higher education. The budget 
recommends making responsible adjustments so that Pell Grants 
will continue to remain available for future students. These 
include:

      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 
[CCRAA] 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 the 
grant he or she receives.

      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 to withdraw 
without debt owed for back assistance, will increase the 
likelihood of students completing their courses and reduce 
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 2015-2016 
award year throughout the budget window. This award would be 
fully funded through discretionary spending.

    Encourage Higher Education Policies That Promote 
Innovation. Federal higher-education policy should focus 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 can 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 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 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 suggests prohibiting these funds from 
being used for administrative costs. Schools already benefit 
significantly from participating in Federal student-aid 
programs.

    Reform Federal Primary and Secondary 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 the reorganization and 
streamlining of K-12 programs to increase efficiency and 
empower State and local entities. This includes providing 
students and families with choice and flexibility in their 
educational decisions, in part by making more Federal aid 
dollars portable. Additionally, ineffective and duplicative 
programs should be eliminated so that Federal dollars are spent 
not on funding bureaucracy but on efforts that improve academic 
outcomes. H.R. 5, The Student Success Act, both emphasizes 
choice and flexibility and identifies opportunities for 
consolidation and increased efficiencies.
    As efforts to consolidate and streamline are undertaken, 
this budget recommends the committees of jurisdiction 
prioritize funding for students with disabilities provided 
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. 
IDEA funding has consistently fallen short of the 40-percent 
Federal contribution threshold established in statute, and 
Congress should refocus efforts to support existing commitments 
before entertaining new programs or initiatives.

    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. The Federal Government already has aid programs 
focused on low-income students, and the oxymoronic act of 
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.

    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.

                                 HEALTH


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    Federal policies should foster innovation in health care, 
not stifle it. America should maintain its world leadership in 
medical science by encouraging competitive forces to work 
through the marketplace in delivering cures and therapies to 
patients. Yet too often the bureaucracy and red-tape in 
Washington hold back medical innovation and prevent new 
lifesaving treatments from reaching patients. This resolution 
recognizes the valuable role of the National Institutes of 
Health [NIH] and the indispensable contributions to medical 
research coming from outside Washington. The House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce is taking an unprecedented, comprehensive 
look at the discovery, development, and delivery process of 
health care treatments to accelerate the pace of cures through 
the 21st Century Cures initiative,\55\ and this budget supports 
those goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 21st Century Cures 
Initiative. http://energycommerce.house.gov/cures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the NIH, programs and agencies that receive 
discretionary funding in this category (Function 550 in Table 
2) include Project Bioshield, the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, and the Food and Drug Administration. The resolution's 
discretionary totals for fiscal year 2016 are $57.7 billion in 
budget authority and $58.4 billion in outlays. The 10-year 
discretionary totals are $640.2 billion in budget authority and 
$628.2 billion in outlays.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    The actual policy choices in this area will be determined 
by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House 
Committee on Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies; Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies; and the Legislative Branch. These panels may be 
guided by the principles and policy options described below.

    Foster Medical Research, Innovation, and Development. 
Medical breakthroughs and discoveries are made every day, and 
the pace of medical innovation will only continue to grow due 
to advancements in fields such as genomic medicine, biomedical 
research, and molecular medicine, to name a few. The NIH and 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] do 
excellent work to foster fundamental creative discoveries, 
cures, and therapies, and to protect America from health, 
safety and security threats. The budget resolution supports a 
level of funding for these agencies that enables them to 
continue their important work.

    Strengthen Oversight and Program Integrity Measures. 
Federal grant programs fund a variety of health care services 
provided by State and local governments. Every dollar made 
available through these programs should be used transparently, 
and in the most effective manner possible for its intended 
purpose. This budget resolution supports increased program 
integrity measures to prevent fraud and abuse in health care 
programs.
    For example, the budget supports greater program integrity 
measures for Title X Family Planning Grants. While this 
resolution supports the long-standing policy to ban Federal 
taxpayer dollars from funding elective abortions, greater 
measures should be taken. As an example, Title X family 
planning funding could be limited from going to an entity 
unless that entity certifies it will not perform elective 
abortions.

    Limit Federal Funding for Members of Congress and Their 
Staffs. Currently, Federal contributions to the Federal 
Employee Health Benefits Program grow by the average weighted 
rate of change in these programs. This budget supports 
restricting the growth in these plans to inflation. This 
proposal assumes discretionary savings of $38.9 billion between 
2016 and 2025 for adopting this policy.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\There are also direct spending savings in this area.

    Restrict Federal Funding for Advertising Against American-
Made Products and Wasteful Government Priorities Such as 
Pickleball. This budget repeals funding from the Prevention and 
Public Health Fund, created as part of the Affordable Care Act. 
As the Committee on Energy and Commerce has uncovered, the 
administration has used dollars in this fund to promote 
Pickleball and free pet neutering, and for massage therapy, 
kickboxing, and Zumba.
    Additionally, this budget does not support the use of 
taxpayer dollars to advertise against American-made products. 
Following the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, the CDC was allocated taxpayer dollars to award grants for 
wellness efforts. These funds were used, however, to run ads 
attacking and singling out legal American products and 
industries--which the administration claimed contributed to bad 
health. The CDC does excellent work on early detection, 
prevention, and treatment for breast and cervical cancer, on 
immunizations, flu vaccines, and many other worthy efforts. The 
agency should receive sufficient funding for these activities, 
but no government agency should receive American taxpayer 
dollars to advertise against American-made products.

    Make Government More Efficient and Responsive. The budget 
supports better targeting of Federal spending to achieve the 
country's goals. For example, the budget supports prudent 
investments to improve mental health care and awareness. GAO 
recently did a study that identified more than 100 distinct 
programs supporting individuals with serious mental illness and 
found that interagency coordination for programs is 
lacking.\57\ Federal dollars should not be squandered on 
antiquated programs that fail to meet patients' needs. Any 
research conducted and grants awarded by the Federal Government 
should be firmly rooted in evidence-based practice. Programs 
and resources in this area should focus on psychiatric care for 
patients and families most in need of services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, HHS 
Leadership Needed to Coordinate Federal Efforts Related to Serious 
Mental Illness, United States Government Accountability Office December 
2014, available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/
republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Analysis/
20150205GAOReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            INCOME SECURITY


                Function Summary: Discretionary Spending

    Programs that subsidize food and housing for low-income 
Americans remain largely unreformed nearly 2 decades after the 
success of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Act. This budget proposes to improve work incentives for these 
programs and increase State flexibility.
    Discretionary spending components of Function 600 include 
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC], the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance 
Program [LIHEAP], the housing assistance programs, and the 
Child Care and Development Block Grant. For these programs the 
budget resolution provides $61.4 billion in budget authority in 
fiscal year 2016, and $63.6 billion in outlays. The figures 
appear in Table 2, Function 600.

           Illustrative Discretionary Spending Policy Options

    The main committees responsible for funding programs are 
the Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on Financial 
Services; and the Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor, Health 
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, and on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies. They will make final policy 
determinations for discretionary funding, and should aim to 
provide State flexibility and expand work incentives. Some 
potential policy options following these guidelines might 
include the following.

    Reform Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP] 
Outreach Funding. This budget assumes that outreach funding for 
the SNAP program is reduced, and the reduction is shifted 
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. Despite dramatic 
funding increases, the Worst Case Housing Needs Report to 
Congress by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
[HUD] suggests the number of families who are severely rent-
burdened or live in substandard conditions remains alarmingly 
high. Reforms are needed to ensure assistance is available to 
those most in need and is structured in a way that best enables 
upward mobility. 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 and effectively.

    Continue Support for Efforts to End Chronic Homelessness. 
Thanks to efforts at the Federal as well as State and local 
levels, chronic homelessness in the U.S. has declined by 21 
percent since 2010. Yet much remains to be done. This 
resolution urges HUD to refocus efforts to accomplish the 
Administration's laudable goal of helping to end chronic 
homelessness by 2017.

                      OTHER DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Discretionary spending under the Medicare Program consists 
primarily of administration and management costs. The budget 
resolution totals for fiscal year 2016 are $6.6 billion in 
discretionary budget authority, with $6.5 billion in outlays. 
The 10-year totals in the budget resolution are $87.2 billion 
in discretionary budget authority and $86.5 billion in outlays 
(Function 570 in Table 2). This also includes the budget for 
the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a non-partisan, 
independent agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 to advise Congress on Medicare payment policies and 
analyze issues affecting beneficiaries, such as access to care, 
quality of care, health care outcomes, and so on.
    The budget assumes that program integrity funding is 
accomplished within existing Budget Control Act cap levels for 
fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2025. By providing full 
funding to combat waste, fraud and abuse, and reduce improper 
payments, this saves $4.7 billion over the 10-year window.
    For administering the Social Security programs, the budget 
provides $5.0 billion in discretionary budget authority and 
$5.1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2016. The 10-year 
totals for discretionary budget authority and outlays are $58.1 
billion and $57.9 billion, respectively (Function 650 in Table 
2). The program is overseen by the Social Security 
Administration.
                            Direct Spending

                              ----------                              

    Uncontrolled direct spending\58\ has come to dominate the 
Federal budget, and its share of total outlays continues to 
grow. Most of this spending (often referred to as ``mandatory'' 
spending) lies in the government's health programs--mainly 
Medicare, Medicaid, and now the Affordable Care Act. Social 
Security represents another major component. Apart from these, 
however, there are numerous other benefits programs financed 
through essentially permanent authorizations without limit. 
These include farm assistance, food stamps, a range of income 
support programs, tuition assistance for college students, and 
many others. This section discusses solely the direct spending 
in these areas as a way to reinforce the urgency of getting 
this spending under control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (Public 
Law 99-177) defines ``direct spending'' as budget authority provided in 
law other than appropriations acts; entitlement authority; and the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            SOCIAL SECURITY


                   Function Summary: Direct Spending

    The prevailing attitude among many in Congress--and in the 
broader policy community--is to deny the inevitable crisis 
facing the Social Security Program. This position ignores the 
unalterable fact that absent structural reform, Social Security 
will fail to fulfill its promises to the Nation's retired and 
disabled persons--and that outcome will occur sooner than 
expected.
    Social Security benefits are financed through payroll taxes 
credited to two trust funds: one for its Old-Age and Survivors 
Insurance [OASI] Program, and the second for Disability 
Insurance [DI]. Under current law, both trust funds face 
insolvency within the next 20 years--one in less than 2 years--
depleting their capacity to pay full benefits. The Social 
Security Program already is running a cash deficit, meaning the 
program is paying more to beneficiaries annually than it 
collects in revenue. If not for balances of Treasury securities 
in the trust funds, built up from previous surpluses, the 
program would be unable to meet all its benefit payments.
    With each year Congress delays, the policy changes needed 
to correct the program's fiscal trajectory will become too 
large and wrenching to adopt. That will lead to sudden, steep 
reductions in benefits.
    For these reasons, the House adopted a rule for the 114th 
Congress prohibiting legislation that improves the financial 
condition of DI at the expense of the OASI trust fund. The rule 
provides an exemption, however, for legislation that improves 
the financial condition of both trust funds.
    This budget calls for a bipartisan way forward by amending 
a current law trigger that would require the President and 
Congress to begin the process of reforming Social Security. The 
lack of bipartisan congressional action on a long-term solution 
to the problem facing Social Security has resulted in many 
members of Congress offering their own solutions. One such 
proposal would be a bipartisan commission that would be 
required to study the structural deficiencies within the 
current Social Security system and report back with specific 
legislative proposals for Congress and the President to 
consider.
    Social Security benefits are reflected in the direct 
spending of budget Function 650. It is the largest budget 
function in terms of outlays, with total outlays in fiscal year 
2014 of $840 billion.\59\ Under this budget, these benefits 
total $896.7 billion in budget authority in fiscal year 2016, 
and $891.9 billion in outlays. Over 10 years, the totals are 
$11.8 trillion in budget authority and $11.7 trillion in 
outlays. With respect to the budget resolution, these benefits 
are treated as off budget and do not appear in the legislative 
text. In this report, they appear as off-budget direct spending 
in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Congressional Budget Office: The Budget and Economic Outlook: 
2015-2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Disability Insurance

    The more urgent problem lies with Disability Insurance. 
Under current law, its trust fund is expected to go bankrupt in 
2016. If lawmakers do not enact reforms to ensure the long-term 
solvency of the Disability Insurance program, an immediate 19-
percent reduction in benefits will be required when the trust 
fund becomes bankrupt.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Social Security & Medicare Trustees Reports, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Obama Administration has proposed diverting funds to DI 
from the OASI trust fund.\61\ While the proposal could provide 
short-term relief for the Disability Insurance program, it 
would do so at the direct expense of OASI's long-term solvency. 
This would necessitate earlier cuts to Social Security benefits 
for current and future retirees. Equally important, it would 
fail to address the underlying causes of DI's financing 
problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\Office of Management and Budget Fiscal Year 2016 Request. H. 
Doc. 114-3, Vol. 1. Table S-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Disability Insurance program has seen huge growth over 
the past decades in terms of number of beneficiaries and the 
benefit amount paid to each beneficiary. The Congressional 
Budget Office in 2012 reported that the share of working-age 
adults receiving Disability Insurance benefits rose from 1.3 
percent to 4.5 percent. On the other hand, tax revenues paid 
into the DI trust fund have remained relatively flat as a share 
of taxable payroll. Benefits payments account for nearly all 
program spending.
    The growth in the number of individuals receiving 
Disability Insurance benefits has contributed heavily to the 
worsening financial condition of the DI trust fund. Between 
1990 and 2013, the total number of individuals receiving DI 
benefits grew from 4.3 million to 11.3 million, an increase of 
155.8 percent.\62\ Demographic changes, characteristics of the 
working-age population, and fraud have contributed to expansion 
of the DI program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\Congressional Research Service, Social Security Disability (DI) 
Trust Fund: Background and Solvency Issue, August 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Principles for Disability Insurance Reform

    The Social Security Disability Insurance program provides 
an essential income safety net for those with disabilities and 
their families. Due in large part to the predictable 
consequence of demographic factors and policy decisions, 
however, DI program revenues will be unable to cover the full 
costs of benefits in 2016, according to the Social Security 
Trustees, unless Congress acts.
    The demographic factors include the aging of the baby 
boomers into their most disability-prone years and the 
increased number of women in the workforce now eligible for 
benefits should they become severely disabled. In addition, 
policymakers have expanded the ways in which applicants qualify 
for benefits. The prolonged economic downturn has also resulted 
in increased application rates and benefit awards over the life 
of the program. At the same time, those on disability are in 
many ways prevented from improving their situation. If they 
work too much, they see their benefits cut off.
    Congress and the President should develop bipartisan 
legislation to secure the future of the DI program. This 
legislation should be rooted in principles that:

    1. Ensure benefits continue to be paid to individuals with 
disabilities and their family members that rely on them.

    2. Prevent a 19-percent across the board benefit cut.

    3. Make the Disability Insurance program work better.

    4. Promote opportunity for those trying to return to work.

    Additionally, consistent with the House rule, reforms 
should begin to improve the financial situation of the Social 
Security Program.

                      Reducing Fraud and Promoting
                 Disability Insurance Program Integrity

    The vast majority of Disability Insurance payments are 
legitimate payments to individuals with disabilities. These 
benefits are an integral part of government's role in providing 
a social safety net for the Nation's most vulnerable citizens. 
Like many government programs, however, DI is vulnerable to 
fraud. A recent Government Accountability Office [GAO] report 
on DI benefits concluded that enhanced program integrity 
policies are necessary to address this problem--particularly 
physician-assisted fraud. The report noted: ``The occurrence of 
fraud has the potential to undermine confidence in the Social 
Security Administration's ability to award benefits only to 
deserving individuals.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\Government Accountability Office. SSA Disability Benefits, 
Enhanced Policies and Management Focus Needed to Address Potential 
Physician-Assisted Fraud, November 2014. GAO-15-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, while the Committee on Ways and Means would 
make the final determination, this budget would require that:

    1. Evidence submitted by unlicensed or sanctioned 
physicians, and health care provided, be prevented from 
consideration when determining eligibility.

    2. New and stronger criminal and civil penalties be 
established to deter fraud conspirators from continuing to 
engage in illegal activity.

    3. The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration 
update the outdated medical-vocational regulatory guidelines 
used for determining disability.

    4. The Commissioner to conduct quality reviews of hearing 
dispositions in sufficient numbers to ensure compliance with 
law, regulations, and other guidance issued.

    5. The Commissioner determine standard qualifications for 
all decision makers involved in the disability determination 
process.

    These policies form the foundation of the Stop Disability 
Fraud Act of 2014 (H.R. 5260), legislation introduced in the 
113th Congress by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), Chairman of the Ways 
and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. The goal of this 
policy option is to provide maximum integrity and transparency 
to the DI program. This procedure provides an important first 
step in recognizing the necessity to offer positive solutions 
in the near-term to solve the long-term fiscal challenges of 
the Disability Insurance Program.

                       Illustrative Policy Option

    Eliminate the Ability to Receive Both Unemployment 
Insurance and Disability Insurance. This option would eliminate 
concurrent receipt of unemployment and disability insurance. 
This is a clear example of duplication in the federal budget. 
This policy option would give the Social Security 
Administration [SSA] the authority to identify fraud and act on 
individuals from obtaining benefits from both programs. This 
policy option is consistent with a similar policy proposal the 
President has made in his budget requests. In acknowledging the 
President desire to act, this budget takes the first step in 
preventing across the board benefit reductions to the Social 
Security program. This policy option could save up to $4.4 
billion.

                       OASI's Looming Insolvency

    Although the OASI trust fund is projected to remain solvent 
through 2034, its financial condition is more fragile than that 
estimate suggests.
    Any value in the balances of the Social Security Trust Fund 
is derived from dubious government accounting. The trust fund 
is not a real savings account. From 1983 to 2010, more tax 
revenues were collected by the trust fund than what it paid out 
in Social Security benefits. Given this surplus, the government 
borrowed all of these dedicated funds 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.
    Moreover, as noted earlier, the program is now running a 
cash deficit; it is paying out more in benefits than it 
collects in payroll taxes. This trend will worsen as 10,000 
baby boomers are reaching retirement age every day. To pay full 
benefits, the government must pay back the money it owes Social 
Security. In testimony before the House Budget Committee, 
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas W. Elmendorf 
stated: ``[O]n 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, * * * the annual balance is positive now, but will be 
negative within about a half dozen years.''\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\U.S. House, Committee on the Budget. The Congressional Budget 
Office's Budget and Economic Outlook, hearing on 13 February 2013 
(Serial No. 113-1). Washington: Government Printing Office, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Social Security's fiscal condition warrants a long-term 
solution that keeps the promise made to the Nation's current 
and future retirees.
    This budget calls for a bipartisan path forward in 
addressing the long-term structural problems within Social 
Security. The path will require all parties to first 
acknowledge the fiscal realities of this critical program. 
Short-term policy proposals that merely delay addressing Social 
Security's long-term fiscal challenges are no longer 
acceptable. Neither borrowing between the OASI and DI trust 
funds, nor reallocating the apportionment of payroll tax 
revenues to each fund is long-term solutions to Social 
Security's fiscal challenges. In testimony before the House 
Budget Committee, CBO Director Elmendorf acknowledged this 
reality: ``If you want to help both programs you're not going 
to accomplish that by moving money around just between 
them.''\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\U.S. House, Committee on the Budget. The Congressional Budget 
Office's Budget and Economic Outlook, hearing on 27 January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's Fiscal Commission elevated the debate, 
suggesting a more progressive benefit structure to ensure that 
the majority of benefits go to the Nation's most vulnerable. 
The Commission also acknowledged the reality of increasing 
longevity and proposed reforms to alleviate the demographic 
problems that are undermining Social Security's finances.
    Certain details of the commission's Social Security 
proposals, particularly on the tax side, are questionable. This 
budget does not endorse taking more money from families and 
businesses. Nonetheless, the Commission outlined a number of 
bold positive solutions that would strengthen the long-term 
solvency of Social Security. This budget seeks to build on the 
President's Fiscal Commission by requiring the President to put 
forward specific solutions to fix Social Security's long-term 
fiscal problem. The budget also puts the onus on Congress to 
offer legislation ensuring the long-term solvency of this 
program, and endorses policy options to combat fraud in the 
Disability Insurance program. Any policy proposal offered 
regarding the Disability Insurance program should first and 
foremost strengthen the long-term integrity of the program for 
the Nation's disabled community.

                          Starting the Process

    This budget requires the President and Congress to begin 
the process of reforming Social Security by altering a current-
law trigger that, in the event 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 the balance to the fund. This provision would then 
require congressional leaders to put forward their positive 
solutions to ensure of the long-term solvency of the Social 
Security Program. The Committee on Ways and Means would make 
the final determination on policy decisions. 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 
Disability Insurance Trust Fund, in its annual Trustees' 
Report, determined that the 75-year actuarial 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 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.

                                MEDICARE


                   Function Summary: Direct Spending

    With the creation of the Medicare Program in 1965,\66\ the 
United States made a commitment to help fund the medical care 
of American seniors. President Kennedy said such a program was 
needed to protect not only the poor, but also those who had 
worked for years and who could suddenly lose all their savings 
because of costly health problems. For a majority of seniors, 
this had become a dire reality. Most had been priced out of the 
health insurance market, which already followed an employment-
based model, and left many with the terrible choice of 
exhausting their own life savings, burdening working-age 
children with costly medical bills, or denying themselves 
necessary medical care. The Medicare Program lifted this 
burden, providing access to affordable health care for 
America's seniors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Title XVIII of the Social Security Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Letting government break its promises to current and future 
generations of seniors is unacceptable. It is irresponsible, 
however, to ignore the current projected spending path of 
Medicare, which is leading the program toward bankruptcy. 
Without reform, Medicare benefits will either be dramatically 
reduced or program spending will continue to consume an ever-
larger portion of the Federal budget.
    Between 1970 and 2014, gross Federal spending for Medicare 
rose from 0.7 percent of gross domestic product [GDP] to 3.0 
percent. In its latest long--term budget projections, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimated Medicare spending will 
continue to rise in the coming decades and is expected to reach 
4.6 percent of GDP by 2039, net of offsetting receipts.\67\ 
Medicare's trustees project that Medicare's Hospital Insurance 
Trust Fund will be bankrupt by 2030.\68\ As discussed further 
below, this projection may in fact be optimistic because it 
relies in part on spending reduction policies by the Affordable 
Care Act that may be unsustainable. Medicare's untenable fiscal 
situation threatens the government's ability to keep its 
commitment to America's seniors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Congressional Budget Office, The 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook, 
15 July 2014: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/45471-Long-
TermBudgetOutlook_7-29.pdf.
    \68\2014 Annual Report Of The Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal 
Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust 
Funds, 28 July 2014: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-
Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/
tr2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 current and future generations.
    A number of factors contribute to the rising spending in 
Medicare. The aging of the baby-boom generation, as 10,000 baby 
boomers are reaching retirement age everyday, is the greatest 
contributing factor. While the population of Medicare 
beneficiaries grows, the relative number of workers subsidizing 
program costs through dedicated payroll taxes declines. In 
1965, there were approximately 4.5 workers per beneficiary; 
today there are only 3 workers per beneficiary--and that ratio 
continues to decrease with time. Other challenges include 
increased costs per beneficiary due to rising health care 
inflation. Thanks to increased life expectancies, beneficiaries 
also spend more time in the Medicare program. When the program 
was originally created, life expectancy was 70 years for the 
average American. Today, the average life expectancy is 
approximately 79 years, while the Medicare age of eligibility 
has remained static at 65 years.
    Medicare's unsustainable fiscal situation threatens the 
government's ability to keep its commitment to America's 
seniors. The program's fundamentally flawed structure 
(described further below) is driving up health care costs, 
threatening to bankrupt the system and ultimately the Nation. 
Unless the Medicare program undergoes reforms to improve its 
fiscal solvency, the program will end up causing exactly what 
it was created to avoid: millions of American seniors without 
adequate health security and a younger working generation 
saddled with enormous debts due to spending levels that cannot 
be sustained.
    The budget resolution reflects Medicare benefits in the 
direct spending portion of Function 570 (see Table 3). The 
function includes all four program components: the Medicare 
Part A Hospital Insurance Program, Part B Supplementary Medical 
Insurance Program, Part C Medicare Advantage Program, and Part 
D Prescription Drug Benefit. The function also reflects 
premiums paid by beneficiaries for voluntary program services, 
namely Parts B and D. For fiscal year 2016, the net direct 
spending totals in the resolution are $571.1 billion in budget 
authority and $571.1 billion in outlays. Over 10 years, 
Medicare direct spending is projected at $7.1 trillion in 
budget authority and $7.1 trillion in outlays.
    Each section of the program has its own financial 
structure. Part A, the hospital insurance benefit, is financed 
primarily by a 2.9 percent payroll tax, which is shared equally 
between employer and employee. Revenues are credited to the 
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. For Part B, premiums paid by 
beneficiaries cover about one-quarter of outlays, and the 
Treasury's General Fund covers the rest. Medicare Advantage, or 
Part C, is financed through beneficiary premiums and payments 
to private insurance plans from Parts A and B, respectively. 
For Part D, the prescription drug benefit, premiums are set--
similarly to Part B--to cover about one-quarter of the cost of 
basic coverage, and general funds cover most of the remaining 
cost. Even though the program has two dedicated sources of 
revenues, the 2.9 percent payroll tax and beneficiary premiums, 
these funds are insufficient to fully support program outlays. 
According to the 2014 Medicare Trustees Report, general 
revenues were needed to fund 41 percent of Medicare program 
costs in 2013.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options

    The President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposes more than 
$431 billion in cuts to the Medicare Program, without providing 
any options for true structural reform that would strengthen 
and preserve the program. As the Medicare program celebrates 
its 50th anniversary, this budget pursues a responsible course 
to ensure the sustainability of the Medicare program for the 
next 50 years. Although the committees of jurisdiction--
including Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce--will make the 
final determinations on specific Medicare reforms, the options 
described below offer a clear and reliable path toward 
solvency.

    Premium Support. Under the current Medicare structure, the 
Federal Government, not the patient, is the customer. With its 
notoriously diminished sensitivity to market forces, the 
government has been slow to innovate and respond to 
transformations within the health care delivery system. 
Controlling costs in an open-ended fee-for-service system has 
proved impossible 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 outcomes--a strategy that has proved 
unsuccessful. Costs have continued to grow, seniors continue to 
lose access to quality care, and the program remains on a path 
to bankruptcy. Inaction will not protect Medicare; it will only 
hasten the program's demise.
    Reform aimed at empowering patients--combined 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. Hence, this budget resolution fully supports 
transitioning the Medicare program to a premium support system.
    Starting in 2024, seniors (those who first become eligible 
by turning 65 on or after 1 January 2024) would be given a 
choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional 
fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare 
exchange. Medicare would provide a premium support payment 
either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by 
the senior, depending on the plan's cost.
    The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from an 
array 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, 
including the 1999 Breaux-Thomas Commission and the Domenici-
Rivlin 2010 Report, would ensure security and affordability for 
seniors now and into the future.\70,71\ In September 2013, the 
Congressional Budget Office analyzed illustrative options of a 
premium support system. CBO 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. 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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, 
Building a Better Medicare for Today and Tomorrow, 16 March 1999: 
http://thomas.loc.gov/medicare/bbmtt31599.html.
    \71\Bipartisan Policy Center, Restoring America's Future, November 
2010: http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/
files/BPC%20FINAL%20REPORT%20FOR%20PRINTER%2002%2028%2011.pdf.
    \72\Congressional Budget Office, A Premium Support System for 
Medicare: Analysis of Illustrative Options, 18 September 2013: http://
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/09-18-PremiumSupport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
    The resolution envisions giving seniors the freedom to 
choose plans best suited for them, guaranteeing health security 
throughout their retirement years. To further ensure Medicare's 
long-term sustainability, the budget includes additional 
reforms starting in 2024, at which point the age of eligibility 
for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with 
Social Security's retirement age.

    A Unified Deductible and Supplemental Insurance Reform. 
Challenges to the program's fiscal solvency still remain prior 
to the implementation of premium support. This budget 
strengthens the Medicare program through another bipartisan 
proposal to modernize the outdated fee-for-service benefit to 
have a single deductible and by reforming supplemental 
insurance policies beginning in 2018. This proposal, which was 
also supported by a number of bipartisan commissions including 
Breaux-Thomas, Rivlin-Domenici, and Simpson-Bowles, would allow 
the Medicare benefit to operate more like private health 
insurance coverage.\73,74,75\ With this reform, Medicare will 
have a single, annual deductible for medical costs and include 
a catastrophic cap on annual out-of-pocket expenses--an 
important aspect of the private health insurance market to 
safeguard the sickest and poorest beneficiaries that is 
currently absent from Medicare. These reforms build in further 
protections for beneficiaries and for the preservation of the 
Medicare program for future generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, op. 
cit, 16 March 1999; Bipartisan Policy Center, op. cit. November 2010.
    \74\Bipartisan Policy Center, op. cit. November 2010.
    \75\The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, 
The Moment of Truth, December 2010: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/
sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/
TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf.

    A Long-Term ``Doc Fix.'' In recent years, Medicare's 
physician reimbursement formula--the ``sustainable growth 
rate''--has threatened steep reductions in payments for 
physicians, creating an unstable reimbursement environment and, 
in some cases, limiting access for beneficiaries by 
discouraging physicians from taking on additional Medicare 
patients. Congress has patched over the problem seventeen times 
over the past decade--a practice known as the ``doc fix.'' 
These measures only temporarily solve the problem, but a 
permanent fix is required to stabilize the program. Although 
the President's budget failed to identify a way to pay for a 
permanent fix of the sustainable growth rate, this budget fully 
accounts for the cost of a permanent reform to physician 
payments in a responsible manner--preserving access for 
Medicare beneficiaries and restoring certainty to the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reimbursement system for patients and physicians.

    Ending the Raid on the Medicare Trust Fund. Supporters of 
the Affordable Care Act insist the law can both shore up the 
Medicare Trust Fund and pay for a new health care entitlement 
program. In 2012 testimony before the House Budget Committee, 
Richard S. Foster, then Medicare's chief actuary, stated the 
truism that the same dollar could not be spent twice.\76\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\House Committee on the Budget, The Fiscal Consequences of the 
New Health Care Law: House Budget Committee Witnesses Testify on the 
Law's True Budgetary Impact, 26 January 2011: http://budget.house.gov/
healthcare/hearing1262011.htm.

    Medical Liability Insurance Reform. This budget also 
advances commonsense curbs on abusive and frivolous lawsuits. 
Medical lawsuits and excessive verdicts increase health care 
costs, result in reduced access to care, and contribute to the 
practice of defensive medicine. When mistakes happen, patients 
have a right to fair representation and fair compensation. The 
current tort litigation system, however, 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 proposed in his fiscal 
year 2014 budget.

    Graduate Medical Education. This budget recognizes that all 
Americans benefit from a strong physician workforce, and yet 
the country faces a significant physician shortage. Recent 
projections estimate a shortfall of up to 90,000 physicians 
nationwide by 2025. By this time, only half of the baby-boom 
generation will have aged into the Medicare Program, and demand 
for physicians will far outpace supply. Unlike the President's 
fiscal year 2016 budget, which proposes deep cuts to graduate 
medical education, this budget provides for reform of this 
program to better match the Nation's health care needs.

    Payment Reforms to Promote Quality and Patient Outcomes. 
The budget promotes payment reforms that would create 
incentives and reward providers for delivering high-quality, 
responsive, and coordinated care in the most clinically 
appropriate setting based on a patient's individual medical 
needs.

                   MEDICAID, THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,
                          AND RELATED PROGRAMS


                   Function Summary: Direct Spending

    One of the worst conceits of Washington is that it can 
centrally manage the entire health care sector. The American 
health care system is made up of innovative entrepreneurs 
willing to take risks to find cures and therapies, hardworking 
medical professionals who commit themselves to medicine because 
they are dedicated to patients, and millions of patients who 
hold nothing more dear than their health.
    Innovation should be applauded. America's scientists and 
engineers should be left to find cures and therapies, not 
wading through regulatory guidance. The practice of medicine 
should be respected. Doctors should be allowed to use their 
time to care for patients, not be forced to spend their time 
doing paperwork. Finally, patients should be at the center of 
the health care system. Patients' health care information, 
concerns, and decisions should be left between them and their 
doctors--and their health care goals should be the driving 
force behind America's health care policies.
    While no one objects to ensuring health care for as many 
Americans as possible, government-run health care is not the 
answer. It distorts the medical market, drives up prices, 
requires tedious regulations, and undermines Americans' liberty 
in this most important and intimate realm: their health. Health 
care decisions should be made by patients and doctors, not by 
Washington. Yet for decades, Federal policymakers have moved 
relentlessly in the opposite direction--and their strategy has 
proved a costly failure.
    The products of this concept include Medicare (discussed in 
Function 570), Medicaid, and now the Affordable Care Act 
[ACA].\77\ Of these, Medicaid constitutes the majority of 
direct spending in this function (Function 550 in Table 3). The 
direct spending totals for fiscal year 2016 are $358.75 billion 
in budget authority and $368.45 billion in outlays. Over 10 
years, the budget projects about $3.3 trillion in budget 
authority and $3.3 trillion in outlays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\The Affordable Care Act, as described in this report, consists 
of the two related measures enacted in March 2010 that constituted the 
health care legislation: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Public Law 111-148), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Medicaid is a crucial component of the American safety net. 
It provides a vital level of security for low-income Americans 
who struggle with long-term illnesses and disabilities. These 
are Americans who are unable to perform substantial gainful 
activities. Medicaid is often the only option for people in 
these difficult circumstances, and the program aims to provide 
these individuals with a pillar of a stable foundation: health 
care.
    Medicaid is also a crucial program for low-income children, 
parents, pregnant women, and seniors. The American social 
safety net should catch these individuals when they fall; for 
those who are able bodied, it should serve as a springboard to 
help them get back up.
    For many, though, Medicaid's promises are empty, its goals 
are unmet, and its dollars are wasted. Sick individuals cannot 
get appointments, new beneficiaries cannot find doctors, and 
Medicaid cards are little more than pieces of plastic. Doctors 
who provide services to Medicaid patients are severely under-
reimbursed, a problem that does not get easier to solve by 
adding more individuals to the system. Without reform, Medicaid 
will not be able to deliver on its promise to provide a sturdy 
health care safety net for the country's most vulnerable.
    Additionally, Medicaid spending is not sustainable. The 
program turns 50 this year, but its next 50 years are highly 
uncertain. By 2030, Medicaid, along with Medicare, Social 
Security, and net interest payments, will take up every dollar 
of Federal Government revenue. That means that if these three 
programs stay on their current paths, America will no longer be 
able to afford its other priorities--national defense, 
education, transportation, and other safety net programs. The 
government will have to either sharply constrain these programs 
and their intended beneficiaries, or put very large sums on the 
country's credit card, which already has reached its limit. The 
options will be less severe if the problems are addressed 
earlier. The budget is committed to this aim.
    According to the CBO, Medicaid spending has increased by 
more than 2000 percent, and 240 percent of GDP, since 1980. The 
increases in just the past 15 years have totaled 155 percent in 
dollars and 42 percent as a share of GDP. CBO projects Federal 
spending on this program to be $335 billion in fiscal year 
2015. This amount is expected to grow by 75 percent over the 
next 10 years, reaching $588 billion by fiscal year 2025.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 
2015 to 2025, p. 166-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This number, however, masks the full cost of Medicaid, 
because it represents only the Federal share of spending. 
States also pay a significant share of Medicaid costs, and 
their spending on the program is expected to follow these 
upward trends, too. According to the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, total State Medicaid spending will rise from 
about $216.0 billion in fiscal year 2015 to $342.5 billion in 
fiscal year 2022.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, 2013 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 (and between 
90 and 100 cents of every dollar for those who are newly 
eligible under the Affordable Care Act).\80\ Expanding Medicaid 
coverage during boom years is tempting for States because State 
governments pay less than half the cost. Conversely, there is 
little incentive to restrain Medicaid's growth because State 
governments only save 43 cents for every dollar worth of 
coverage they rescind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\Congressional Budget Office, op. cit. p. 68-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's health care law exacerbates this dynamic by 
adding even more liabilities to an already strained program. 
CBO estimates the new law will increase Federal Medicaid and 
State Children's Health Insurance Program spending by $920 
billion over the 2016-25 period.\81\ This sharp increase is due 
to the millions of new beneficiaries the Affordable Care Act 
will drive into these programs. In fact, CBO estimates that in 
2025, 16 million new enrollees will be added to the Medicaid 
Program as a result of the ACA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\Ibid. p. 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options

    For all the reasons given above, the resolution calls for 
major reforms of the Medicaid program and repeal of the 
Affordable Care Act. Regarding the latter, it should be 
emphasized that repeal is a necessary first step, but it is 
still only the first step in fixing a broken program. The 
status quo prior to the ACA is not acceptable. Instead, repeal 
is intended to clear the way to a more sound and patient-
centered approach to health care in America. The budget 
resolution includes a policy statement that describes the 
contours of such a patient-centered approach.
    The House committees responsible for the program changes in 
these areas are Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education 
and the Workforce, Judiciary, Natural Resources, House 
Administration, and three of the Committee on Appropriations' 
Subcommittees: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies; Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education and Related Agencies; and Legislative 
Branch. They will determine the exact parameters of structural 
Medicaid reform, as well as those for other policies flowing 
from the fiscal assumptions in this budget resolution. 
Nevertheless, the need for meaningful Medicaid reform and other 
measures to slow the growth of Federal spending are critical, 
and one set of potential approaches is outlined below.

    Provide State Flexibility on Medicaid. One way to 
strengthen and secure the Medicaid benefit is to convert the 
Federal share of Medicaid spending into State Flexibility Funds 
that each State could tailor to meet its needs. Governors and 
State legislatures are closer to patients in their States and 
know better than Washington bureaucrats where there is unmet 
need in the system and where there are opportunities to cut 
down on waste, fraud, and abuse.
    State Flexibility Funds would end the misguided one-size-
fits-all approach that ties the hands of State governments 
trying to make their Medicaid programs as effective as 
possible. State Flexibility Funds would provide each State with 
the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that 
fits the needs of its unique population.
    There are great examples from across the country that 
demonstrate the ability of States to use the existing, though 
limited, flexibility in Medicaid's waiver program to promote 
innovative reforms that produce cost savings and quality 
improvements. For example, through its Healthy Indiana Plan 
(which Indiana implemented prior to the ACA), Indiana provided 
residents who did not qualify for Medicaid with access to 
health benefits such as physician services, prescription drugs, 
inpatient and outpatient hospital care, and disease management.
    All States should have the flexibility to adapt their 
Medicaid programs to fit their particular needs--to expand 
coverage for populations in their States who need it; to 
implement work requirements for able-bodied, working-age 
Medicaid beneficiaries; to promote personal responsibility and 
healthy behaviors; and to encourage a more holistic approach to 
care that considers not only Medicaid beneficiaries' health 
conditions but also their economic, social, and family 
concerns. State legislators and governors know their people 
better than far-away Washington and should have the flexibility 
they need to provide the best care to their residents.
    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, should be 
able to choose their own doctors and make their own healthcare 
decisions, instead of having Washington make those decisions 
for them.
    The budget resolution proposes to transform Medicaid from 
an open-ended entitlement into a State Flexibility program like 
SCHIP. Medicaid and SCHIP would be unified under the proposal. 
This budget includes a reserve fund to provide for extension of 
Federal spending for SCHIP.
    This kind of reform would ease the fiscal burdens imposed 
on State budgets, contribute to the long-term stabilization of 
the Federal Government's fiscal path, and preserve the Medicaid 
safety net.

    Repeal the Medicaid Expansions in the New Health Care Law. 
The recently enacted health care law called for major 
expansions in the Medicaid program as of 2014. The Federal 
Government will pay a significantly larger share of the 
Medicaid expenses for individuals who are newly eligible for 
Medicaid due to the ACA, dramatically increasing outlays. Newly 
eligible beneficiaries will also add pressure to already-
strained State budgets beginning in 2016 when the Federal 
matching rate begins to decrease and the new health care law 
forces States to bear some of the expansion costs.
    According to CBO, there will be 11 million new individuals 
in the Medicaid program in 2015, and by 2020 there will be 16 
million new individuals in the program because of the ACA. 
These new beneficiaries add additional pressure to an already 
strained system, adding more people to a group that already 
struggles to find doctors willing to take them on as patients 
or find time for their appointments.
    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 service availability.
    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 $904 billion over 10 years.

    Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health 
Care Law. According to CBO estimates, the ACA's health 
insurance exchange subsidies will cost American taxpayers $1.1 
trillion over the next 10 years. The subsidies cost a lot more 
than that, however; they cost Americans the freedom to make 
their own decisions about their own health care coverage.
    The President's health care law pairs these subsidies with 
new bureaucratic controls and a new tax on individuals without 
health coverage.\82\ Together these provisions will undermine 
the competitive forces of the marketplace and gradually crowd 
out the private insurance market, resulting in worse health 
care quality and health outcomes for Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\The ACA's authors wrote this provision as a mandate requiring 
people to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty. The Supreme 
Court in 2012 ruled the provision was unconstitutional as a mandate, 
but that the very same provision could stand as a tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The government is also in charge of determining who is 
eligible for government-provided subsidies and who will be 
subject to the full cost of these expensive, new government-
controlled plans. Eligibility determinations are subject to a 
maze of rules and regulations. Subsidies for individuals and 
families are based on the Federal Poverty Level. Because the 
law does not account for two-income households, subsidies are 
reduced for families where both parents work and earn income. 
As a result, the subsidy calculations create a disincentive for 
couples to marry or remain married under the ACA because they 
cannot afford to pay their premiums at current rates. These 
subsidies also are often miscalculated, leading to individuals 
and families owing the IRS huge payments at tax time.
    This budget stands for the principles that health care 
entities should not be forced to be complicit in abortion, 
individuals should be free to make their own decisions about 
health insurance, organizations should not be forced to finance 
activities or make health decisions that violate their 
religious or moral beliefs, and a single-payer health system--
which the ACA will eventually foster--is wrong for America. 
What type of health insurance and how much health care 
Americans can get is a decision that should involve the 
individual and his or her doctor--not one that should be 
trusted to bureaucrats in Washington. This budget recommends 
repealing the new health care law in its entirety.
    Repeal of the insurance subsidies and other exchange-
related spending would save roughly $1.1 trillion over 10 
years. CBO's $1.1 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.\83\ This budget assumes full repeal of all of the new 
health care law's tax increases as part of comprehensive tax 
reform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\The insurance premium subsidies are provided in the form of 
refundable tax credits. This means some recipients receive the subsidy 
as a reduction in their tax liabilities. If all or part of the credit 
exceeds the individual's tax liability, that portion--the 
``refundable'' part of the credit--is delivered as a payment and 
categorized as an outlay. Most of the subsidies are provided in the 
latter way. See Congressional Budget Office, Insurance Coverage 
Provisions of the Affordable Care Act--CBO's January 2015 Baseline, 
January 2015: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/
attachments/43900-2015-01-ACAtables.pdf.

    Limit Federal Employee Health Benefit Growth for Retired 
Members of Congress and Their Staffs and Base Retirement 
Benefits on Length of Service. Currently, Federal contributions 
to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program grow by the 
average weighted rate of change in these programs. This budget 
supports restricting the growth in these plans to inflation for 
retirees.\84\ This proposal assumes direct spending savings of 
$21.7 billion for adopting a policy like this. The budget also 
proposes basing Federal employee retirees' health benefits on 
length of service. This option would reduce premium subsidies 
for retirees who had relatively short Federal careers and 
result in $1.2 billion in savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\The budget also restricts growth of the FEHB program for 
current Congress Members and their staffs. This cost-savings proposal 
is shown in the discretionary spending section of Function 550.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   FARM SUPPORT AND RELATED PROGRAMS


                   Function Summary: Direct Spending

    While agriculture has experienced high market prices and 
incomes since 2009, net farm income in 2015 is expected to fall 
sharply from 2013's record-high level. The recently-passed 
Agricultural Act of 2014--otherwise known as the Farm Bill--
made a number of reforms to agricultural policies, most notably 
by eliminating Direct Payments which had cost taxpayers almost 
$91 billion over the past 18 years and were paid regardless of 
market conditions. Significant declines in market prices over 
the past year are expected to result in increased levels of 
assistance under the Farm Bill's new price- and revenue-based 
programs. While it is important to continue to reform 
agricultural programs, weather and market challenges continue 
to highlight the importance of maintaining a strong safety net 
for farmers.
    Direct spending programs in the agriculture function 
include direct assistance and loans to food and fiber 
producers, export assistance, agricultural research, and other 
programs.
    The committee appreciates the Agriculture Committee's 
effort in the Farm Bill to reduce overall direct spending in 
this area. The budget resolution calls for direct spending in 
this function of $14.0 billion in budget authority and $15.2 
billion in outlays in fiscal year 2016. The 10-year direct 
spending totals for budget authority and outlays are $135.6 
billion and $133.9 billion, respectively. The figures appear in 
Function 350 of Table 3.

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options

    Specific policies affecting direct spending in this 
function will be determined by the Agriculture Committee. Among 
the options it may wish to consider are the following.

    Reform Agricultural Programs. The budget proposes that 
additional savings be found in this area. 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 2016 through 
fiscal year 2025. These savings could be achieved by continuing 
to reform agricultural programs. These proposed savings are 
coupled with significant benefits that will be realized 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.

                   BANKING, COMMERCE, POSTAL SERVICE,
                          AND RELATED PROGRAMS


                   Function Summary: Direct Spending

    As with its annually appropriated programs, the Federal 
Government has used direct spending in commerce and housing in 
a way that moves from healthy and productive support for 
industry to over-subsidizing corporations and unfairly exposing 
taxpayers to risk. One example is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
which were placed into Federal conservatorship in 2008 and 
remain a part of the Federal Government. As a result, taxpayers 
remain exposed to Fannie's and Freddie's more than $5 trillion 
of outstanding commitments.
    On a unified basis, the resolution provides $6.4 billion in 
direct spending budget authority and -$7.3 billion in outlays 
in this area in fiscal year 2016 (shown in Function 370 of 
Table 3, Commerce and Housing Credit). Reforms will be 
determined by the Committee on Financial Services, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform. Criteria the committees may 
wish to apply include promoting free enterprise and economic 
growth in a responsible way, scaling back corporate welfare, 
and protecting taxpayers from the risk of future bailouts.

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options


                       ON-BUDGET DIRECT SPENDING

    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 from 
which it benefits.

    Reform the Universal Service Fund. The Universal Service 
Fund [USF] provides subsidized telecommunications services 
through four main programs: High-Cost Support, Schools and 
Libraries, Lifeline Program, and Rural Health Care. The USF is 
funded through mandatory contributions by carriers, who pass 
these costs to consumers as fees on subscribers' telephone 
bills. This budget resolution aims to reform burdensome 
programs and has identified the Lifeline Program, which 
provides phone service subsidies to low-income Americans, as 
one example. The Lifeline Program, under the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Communications Commission, costs taxpayers an 
estimated $2 billion a year while being plagued by fraud, 
waste, and abuse. Reforming this program will significantly 
reduce the burden on taxpayers.

    Restrict FDIC Authority Provided by Dodd-Frank to Bail Out 
Bank Creditors. Dodd-Frank expands and centralizes power in 
Washington, exacerbating 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 unraveling in recent history. Although the law 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, the law only sustains them. The Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] now has the authority to 
access taxpayers' dollars to bail out the creditors of large, 
``systemically significant'' financial institutions. The 
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.
    The 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, Dodd-Frank requires 
diverting a portion of those remittances 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\85\ into 
conservatorship to prevent them from going bankrupt. The 
Treasury has already provided $187 billion in bailouts to 
Fannie and Freddie and, as mentioned above, taxpayers remain 
exposed to more than $5 trillion in Fannie's and Freddie's 
outstanding commitments as long as the entities remain in 
conservatorship. The Congressional Budget Office [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 them off budget. Despite recent dividend 
payments by Fannie and Freddie, both enterprises continue to 
assume outsize risks that place taxpayers in jeopardy in the 
event of future downturns in the housing market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\Formally the Federal National Mortgage Association [FNMA] and 
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [FHLMC].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This budget suggests 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 seeks to remove distortions to 
allow an influx of private capital and to advance 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.

    Incorporate Fair-Value Accounting Principles in the Credit 
Reform Act. As the exposure of taxpayers to Fannie and Freddie 
continues, taxpayers also are vulnerable to bailing out another 
housing giant, the Federal Housing Administration [FHA]. The 
capital ratio of the FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance fund has 
remained below the congressionally mandated 2 percent level 
since the financial crisis. Given the precarious financial 
condition of the FHA, the government should adopt measures to 
control the assumption of risk by the FHA as other government-
backed entities (such as Fannie and Freddie) are wound down. 
Right now, the government accounts for the risks carried by the 
FHA differently from 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 a risk-free marketable Treasury 
security rate. In contrast, the 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; hence it 
reflects the full financial risk incurred by taxpayers for 
backing these loans. In other words, the current budgetary 
treatment of FHA loans understates the full costs associated 
with them, thereby encouraging policymakers to shift risk from 
Fannie and Freddie to the FHA.
    This resolution requires the 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 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 DIRECT SPENDING

    Reform the Postal Service. Like Social Security, the U.S. 
Postal Service [USPS] is classified as off budget, meaning in 
part that its spending does not appear in the legislative text 
of the budget resolution.\86\ Nevertheless, government 
financial support for what is supposed to be a self-sustaining 
operation represents a real cost to taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\The U.S. Postal Service was statutorily placed off budget in 
the 1989 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The USPS is unable to meet its financial obligations 
through its own business-like operation, and desperately needs 
structural reforms. Since fiscal year 2007, the USPS has run 
annual operating losses; in fiscal year 2014 it defaulted on 
another $5.7-billion payment to prefund the retirement health 
care of its employees. In 2009, the Government Accountability 
Office [GAO] added the USPS to its ``high-risk'' list due to 
the Postal Service's ``deteriorating financial situation,'' 
finding that the ``USPS urgently needs to restructure to 
reflect changes in its customers' use of the mail, to align its 
costs with revenues, generate sufficient funding for capital 
investment, and manage its debt.''\87\ In its most recent high-
risk report update, GAO still has the USPS on its list as 
needing attention by Congress and the administration.\88\ As of 
the close of fiscal year 2014, the USPS had a total of 
approximately $124 billion in unfunded long-term debt, 
including accrued health-benefit compensation for postal 
retirees, workers' compensation, and debt owed to the Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, 
February 2013.
    \88\Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, 
February 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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. Examples of the 
flexibility that should be considered have been included in 
several reform proposals approved by the House Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform and by the administration, 
including calls to modify both the frequency and type of mail 
delivery. 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 do other Federal employees. Taken together, these reforms 
are estimated to save more than $40 billion over 10 years and 
would help restore the Postal Service's solvency.

                    STUDENT LOANS, SOCIAL SERVICES,
                          AND RELATED PROGRAMS


                   Function Summary: Direct Spending

    Supporting and investing in higher education is critical to 
the Nation's present and future. The Pew Research Center has 
documented some of the many benefits of attending college, 
including better employment prospects and higher wages.\89\ 
Clearly, a strong higher education system benefits students, 
families, and the country as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\Pew Research Center, ``The Rising Cost of Not Going to 
College,'' February 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recognizing these benefits, the Federal Government has 
provided substantial support for higher education, particularly 
student loans, since the 1960s. The government's direct loan 
portfolio has grown from roughly $106 billion outstanding in 
fiscal year 2007 to more than $740 billion today. While support 
for higher education is an important goal of government, 
policies that were designed to help more Americans go to 
college have been accompanied by a few troubling trends. As the 
Federal Government has provided greater access to aid, colleges 
have consistently raised tuition and fees at a rate well above 
inflation. This has made college more expensive for many 
Americans, and thus less accessible--exactly the opposite of 
what the Federal policies were intended to do. Additionally, it 
has driven some students to take on crippling levels of debt to 
pay for skyrocketing tuition.
    Another problem is that the way the government currently 
accounts for student loans (and most other Federal loan and 
loan guarantee programs) fails to take market risk into 
account. This tends to make student loans look less risky and 
less expensive than they really are, and provides the federal 
government a perverse incentive to issue more loans regardless 
of whether that's what's best for students. The unrealistic 
assumptions used in the current accounting methodology is what 
causes the spending for this section of the resolution--which 
is bound by the same estimating conventions--to be negative: in 
fiscal year 2016 -$7.6 billion in budget authority and -$967 
million in outlays. As explained previously, these figures are 
misleading.
    Rather than foster a system that drives up tuition and 
presents too many students with the difficult choice between 
crippling debt or stopping short of their highest educational 
attainment, this resolution envisions a framework that uses 
Federal dollars more efficiently, accounts for student loans in 
a way that reflects their true cost, and invests in a 
sustainable higher education system that is good for students, 
institutions of higher education, and taxpayers.
    Student loans are a major component of direct spending in 
this category, shown as Function 500 in Table 3. In addition, 
the function reflects numerous other programs supporting higher 
education, and some others that fund social services.

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options

    The transformation of programs in this area will be 
determined primarily by the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. Committee members may be guided by some of the 
principles described above. Potential policy options might 
include the following.

    Repeal New Funding from the Student Aid and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act [SAFRA] 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.
    SAFRA, however, exploited the higher non-adjusted savings 
projection to help 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 recent 
expansions to some Federal income-based repayment programs. The 
Income-Based Repayment program, created by the College Cost 
Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and accelerated by the 
administration, is still relatively new. Moreover, there are 
concerns that the expansions could disproportionately benefit 
graduate and professional students. Additionally, the 
President's budget submission for fiscal year 2016 contained an 
updated estimate showing a $22 billion decrease in the value of 
the federal loan portfolio, which is widely understood to be 
due in large part to expansions in Federal income-based 
repayment programs.\90\ Congress should reform these programs 
to ensure they are meeting their intended goals and are 
designed in a way that protects taxpayer dollars before being 
expanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\See numbers provided in the following: Office of Management and 
Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government--Fiscal Year 2016, p. 
377.

    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.

    Simplify the Existing Higher Education Programs to Protect 
Students and Taxpayers. The way the current Federal aid system 
is set up, it is unduly complicated and contains some 
provisions that result in disparate treatment for some 
students. Given the numerous other repayment options available, 
and the disparate treatment inherent in its design, actions 
taken by the committee of jurisdiction to streamline, reform, 
and simplify the current system could include ending the Public 
Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

    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 assumes eliminating this duplicative 
spending.

                       INCOME SUPPORT, NUTRITION,
                          AND RELATED PROGRAMS


                            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. If the government 
continues running unsustainable 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.
    Supporting work, encouraging innovation, and measuring 
program effectiveness are essential elements to reforming the 
Nation's safety net programs to create real pathways out of 
poverty for millions of low-income Americans. Yet, instead of 
promoting an effective and streamlined system designed to 
enhance upward mobility and self-sufficiency, the Federal 
Government continues to operate a patchwork of more than 80 
welfare programs that lack any coordination in their efforts to 
help people escape poverty. Multiple programs, overlapping 
services, and differing benefit structures often create 
significant disincentives to work, keeping many trapped in a 
cycle of poverty for years. While reforms during the 1990s 
helped many cash welfare recipients find work and escape 
poverty, those reforms were limited in scope and affected only 
a small part of the safety net.
    The goal of anti-poverty programs should be self-
sufficiency, not extended dependency. To that end, this budget 
proposes to continue the successful welfare reforms of the 
1990s by improving work requirements for means-tested programs 
to help more people escape poverty and move up the economic 
ladder. It focuses resources in programs that deliver real 
results, restraining spending to reasonable levels, reducing 
improper payments, and allowing states more ability to improve 
programs through policy innovation.
    Most of the Federal Government's income-support programs 
are reflected in the direct spending components of Function 
600, Income Security (Table 3). 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; 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 [TANF], the government's principal cash welfare 
program; Supplemental Security Income [SSI]; and spending for 
the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. 
Agencies administering these and other programs in Function 600 
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).
    For these programs, the resolution provides $450.9 billion 
in direct spending budget authority for fiscal year 2016, and 
$450.1 billion in outlays. The 10-year figures are $4.4 
trillion in budget authority and $4.4 trillion in outlays. The 
figures appear in Function 600 of Table 3.

              Illustrative Direct Spending Policy Options

    The main committees responsible for funding programs under 
Function 600 are Ways and Means, Agriculture, Oversight and 
Government Reform, and Education and the Workforce. They will 
make final policy determinations on how to increase State 
flexibility, reduce improper payments, and reform programs to 
eliminate marriage penalties and work disincentives. Some 
potential policy options following these guidelines might 
include the following.

    Protect 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 TANF work requirement. 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.'' The 
budget also calls for eliminating the ability of States to 
avoid TANF work targets by spending more money than required on 
their state programs.

    Convert the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
[SNAP] into State Flexibility Allotments. Spending on SNAP--
formerly known as the Food Stamp Program--has increased 
dramatically over the past 15 years, growing more than fourfold 
since 2001. While this is partially due to the recession, SNAP 
spending remains near record levels even as the unemployment 
rate has fallen by a full percentage point in the past year. 
Various factors are driving this growth, but one major reason 
is that while 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 2021, providing States with time to 
structure their own programs. This proposal is estimated to 
save $125 billion over 10 years.

    Reform Supplemental Security Income. Welfare programs 
typically pay benefits on a sliding scale. SSI is different, 
however, 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 such a step. In 1995, 
Jonathan M. Stein--the lead advocate attorney in the landmark 
1990 Supreme Court Case expanding SSI eligibility for children 
and witness at a 27 October 2011 Ways and Means Subcommittee 
hearing on SSI--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.''\91\ 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 $6 billion over 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\Committee on Ways and Means. U.S. House of Representatives, 
Contract with America: Welfare Reform, Part 2, Hearing, 2 February 1995 
(Serial No. 104-44). Washington: Government Printing Office, 1995.

    Opportunity Grant Pilot Projects. This proposal would 
create pilot projects that would encourage States to test a 
variety of work-based reforms across multiple programs. States 
would receive consolidated funding for satisfying key 
conditions such as requiring able-bodied recipients to engage 
in work or preparing for work; encouraging competition among 
service providers who have demonstrated records of success; and 
incorporating robust accountability and evaluation systems to 
determine what works to help families move up the income 
ladder. It is noteworthy that the President's fiscal year 2016 
budget included a related--albeit more limited--pilot project 
proposal, which similarly targets goals of increasing mobility, 
streamlining programs, promoting self-sufficiency, and reducing 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
poverty.

    State Flexibility for Foster Care Program. Significant 
discussions are currently taking place among States, advocates, 
and Federal policymakers about proposals that would expand 
State flexibility in designing programs and privatization pilot 
projects meant to better prevent child abuse and neglect. Such 
proposals would also result in fewer children being removed 
from their homes, allowing more funds to be directed toward 
prevention efforts as well as reducing the cost of the Nation's 
foster care system.

    Flexibility for National School Lunch Program Standards. 
The Healthy, Hungry Free Kids Act imposed new regulations on 
the school lunch program. No one disagrees with ensuring 
students have nutritious food, but the mandates on localities 
have the unintended consequence of reducing participation in 
the program. This budget calls for allowing schools more 
flexibility to meet nutrition standards.

    Ensure that Certain Groups of Undocumented Workers Remain 
Ineligible for Federal Benefits. In his address to the Nation 
on 20 November 2014, the President said undocumented workers 
receiving deferral of removal under his executive actions 
should not be granted the same benefits that citizens receive. 
As a result of his executive actions that same month, however, 
potentially millions of undocumented workers would become 
eligible for Federal benefits, according to Congressional 
Budget Office estimates. The budget resolution supports 
reversing the overreach of the President's November 2014 
actions and ensures that undocumented workers do not create a 
bigger burden on an already strained public benefit system.

    Reform Civil-Service Pensions. This budget adopts a policy 
proposed by the President's National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility. The policy calls for Federal employees, 
including members of Congress and staff, to make greater 
contributions toward their own defined benefit retirement 
plans. It would also end the ``special retirement supplement,'' 
which pays Federal employees the equivalent of their Social 
Security benefit at an earlier age. This would achieve 
significant savings while recognizing the need for new Federal 
employees to transition to a defined contribution retirement 
system. The vast majority of private sector employees 
participate in defined contribution retirement plans. These 
plans put the ownership, flexibility, and portfolio risk on the 
employee as opposed to the employer. Similarly, Federal 
employees would have more control over their own retirement 
security under this option. This option would save up to $127 
billion over 10 years.

    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.

                   FEDERAL LANDS AND OTHER RESOURCES


                   Function Summary: Direct Spending

    The fiscal year 2016 budget resolution continues to support 
policies that will make America's natural resources available 
to producers who can provide a fair return to taxpayers. In 
addition to the receipts the Federal Government collects from 
royalties, rents, and bonus bids, increased economic activity 
on Federal land will create jobs and boost economic output.
    Farm security and rural investment programs and the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Federal aid in wildlife restoration 
programs are among the largest direct spending programs in this 
category. The remainder is distributed among numerous smaller 
programs. The direct spending budget totals for these programs 
are $984 million in budget authority and $1.3 billion in 
outlays for fiscal year 2016; over 10 years, the figures are 
$10.3 billion in budget authority and $8.3 billion in outlays. 
(See Function 300 in Table 3.)
    Oil and gas production on Federal land has fallen 
significantly under the current administration, while 
production on private lands has more than offset the drop with 
increased production. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the 
U.S. produced 5.2 million barrels of oil per day, with 
production on Federal property accounting for 33 percent of the 
total.\92\ By fiscal year 2013, the U.S. was producing 7.2 
million barrels per day, but production on Federal lands was 
reduced to 23 percent of the total.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\Humphries, Marc, U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in 
Federal and Non-Federal Areas, Congressional Research Service, 10 April 
2014.
    \93\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, timber harvests on Federal land have been 
declining for decades since peaking in the late 1980s and early 
1990s. In fiscal year 1988, 14.6 million board feet of timber 
were harvested on Federal land, with a total value of roughly 
$2.5 billion (in 2013 dollars).\94\ In fiscal year 2014, only 
2.4 million board feet were harvested, generating less than 
$150 million.\95\ This dramatic reduction in economic activity 
in States and counties housing Federal lands within their 
borders has wreaked havoc on their ability to fund local 
services, such as schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\Hoover, Katie, National Forest System Management: Overview, 
Appropriations, and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research 
Service, 29 January 2015.
    \95\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A large part of the problem is that the administration is 
keeping Federal lands under lock and key, but a more 
fundamental problem is the Federal estate is far too large. The 
Federal Government owns ``somewhere between 635-640 million 
acres of land--almost a third of the United States.''\96\ The 
Federal Government cannot properly manage all this land and, as 
a result, Federal agencies estimate a $22 billion maintenance 
backlog.\97\ The budget resolution supports reducing the 
Federal estate, and giving States and localities more control 
over the resources within their boundaries. This will lead to 
increased resource production and allow States and localities 
to take advantage of the benefits of increased economic 
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\House Committee on Natural Resources, ``Views and Estimates for 
Fiscal Year 2016,'' Chairman Rob Bishop.
    \97\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Illustrative Direct Spending Options

    As it develops policies in these areas, the Committee on 
Natural Resources may wish to keep the factors above in mind. 
Some of the options that might emerge from these considerations 
include the following.

    Reducing the Federal Estate and Maintaining Existing Land 
Resources. The President's budget seeks to turn certain Federal 
land acquisition accounts from discretionary to direct 
spending. The Federal Government is already struggling with a 
maintenance backlog on the millions of acres it controls--a 
backlog totaling between $17 billion and $22 billion--but the 
administration is seeking to acquire even more land. This 
budget keeps funding for land acquisition under congressional 
oversight and encourages reducing the Federal estate, giving 
States and localities more control over the land and resources 
within their borders.

    Expand Access to Federal Land for Timber Harvest. Timber 
harvest rates on Federal land have been declining for nearly 30 
years. As a result, the States and localities that depend on 
their share of the receipts have been shortchanged the funding 
they need for schools and other local needs. Increased timber 
harvests will create economic growth in localities throughout 
the country, increase receipts to the Federal Government, 
States, and localities, and reduce the need for funding 
replacement programs, such as Secure Rural Schools.

    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 those of the U.S. 
requires producing more energy at home.
    Unlocking domestic energy supplies in a safe, 
environmentally responsible manner will increase receipts 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.

    Remove Barriers to Getting Domestically Produced Energy to 
Global Markets. America has become the world's largest energy 
producer, which has been, and continues to be, a boon to the 
U.S. economy. Getting access to overseas markets would lead to 
even more production and all of the jobs and economic growth 
that come with it--while protecting the vibrancy of the 
refining market in the U.S.
    Exporting crude oil was prohibited by statute during the 
oil embargo in the 1970s. Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-TX) introduced 
legislation, H.R. 702, which would end the outdated crude oil 
export ban, providing domestic oil better access to global 
markets. This would increase hiring and economic activity in 
the domestic oil industry, while also putting downward pressure 
on global oil prices.

                         OTHER DIRECT SPENDING


                 General Science, Space, and Technology

    Almost all the government's science and technology funding 
is discretionary. Nevertheless, there is a small amount of 
direct spending within the National Science Foundation that 
funds the Directorate for Education and Human Resources [EHR]. 
The EHR focuses on science, technology, engineering, and math 
[STEM] programs at all educational levels.
    The resolution calls for $107 million in direct spendig 
budget authority and $105 million in outlays in fiscal year 
2016.The 10-year totals are $1 billion for both budget 
authority and outlays. The figures appear in Table 3, Function 
250.

                   Community and Regional Development

    The main direct spending component of this function 
(Function 450 in Table 3) is the National Flood Insurance 
Program [NFIP]. The goal of the program is to provide 
affordable flood insurance to property owners and encourage 
communities to enact floodplain management regulations to 
mitigate the effects of flooding. Other direct spending 
programs within the function include activities such as 
Community Development Financial Institutions, Rural Energy for 
America, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education, and 
activities of the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund. The 
resolution calls for $124 million in direct spending budget 
authority and $351 million in outlays in fiscal year 2016. The 
10-year totals for direct spending budget authority and outlays 
are $5.4 billion and $13.2 billion, respectively.
    A potential savings option here is to 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.
                          Financial Management

                              ----------                              

    The remaining categories chiefly concern major non-
programmatic financing mechanisms for the government. Net 
Interest, for example, represents payments resulting from the 
government's past borrowing. Allowances is a placeholder 
function for budgetary effects that the Congressional Budget 
Office has not yet assigned to other specific categories. 
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts represents payments to the 
government that are recorded as negative budget authority and 
outlays. These three functions round out the spending 
components of the budget overall.

                              NET INTEREST


                            Function Summary

    One of the worst effects of large, chronic budget deficits 
is the high interest cost it produces. Interest payments yield 
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 this category 
(Function 900 in Tables 1 and 3), 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, in the true 
sense of the word, with no policy options and no discretionary 
components.
    According to CBO, if government programs are not reformed, 
net interest payments are projected to nearly quadruple from 
$229 billion in 2014 to $827 billion by 2025. At this rate, 
interest costs are projected to grow at an annual average rate 
of approximately 12.4 percent--the fastest growing major 
component of the Federal budget outside of the newly created 
exchange subsidies in the Affordable Care Act. Net interest 
spending is projected to exceed the entire amount spent on the 
national defense base budget by 2021.
    Reducing interest costs will require sustained spending 
restraint. This budget resolution provides such restraint, and 
it reduces net interest by $894.5 billion over ten years 
compared with the CBO baseline.

                    Summary of Net Interest Payments

    The resolution calls for $274.3 billion of direct spending 
for net interest payments in fiscal year 2016. The proposed 10-
year total for net interest payments are $4.7 trillion.
    On-budget direct spending--or net interest payments 
unrelated to Social Security or the Postal Service--is $366.5 
billion in fiscal year 2016 and $5.7 trillion over 10 years. 
The on-budget figure is larger than the budget Function 900 
total because the former is offset by off-budget interest 
payments to the Social Security Trust Fund. These off-budget 
interest payments are presented as negative numbers because 
they reflect money coming into, rather than flowing out of, the 
Treasury.
    Off-budget direct spending is -$92.3 billion in fiscal year 
2016, and -$922.3 billion over 10 years.

                               ALLOWANCES


                            Function Summary

    The Allowances categories represent place-holders for 
certain budgetary impacts that the Congressional Budget Office 
has yet to assign to a specific budget function. In the case of 
this resolution, there are two, presented as Function 920 and 
Function 990 in the summary tables. The particulars of the 
categories are described below.

                              Function 920

    In August 2011, the President and Congress enacted the 
Budget Control Act [BCA] of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), which 
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 National Defense 
and Medicare (Function 570), even though the law does require 
reductions in non-defense and non-Medicare areas of the budget. 
At the time of its January 2015 baseline release, 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.
    The budget resolution recommends no changes in this 
function, leaving it instead at the CBO baseline levels. The 
CBO baseline for Function 920 includes a total of $406 billion 
and $358 billion in reductions for budget authority and outlays 
over 10-years, 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 reduction of $383.4 billion in budget authority and 
$342.4 billion in outlays for non-defense activities, needed to 
comply with the discretionary spending caps set by section 101 
of the BCA;

    2. A $22.3 billion and $15.5 billion reduction in budget 
authority and outlays, respectively, to non-Medicare and non-
defense direct spending programs necessary to comply with the 
automatic-enforcement procedure (the sequester) mandated by the 
BCA.

                              Function 990

    The CBO baseline for Function 990 includes a total of $241 
million and $226 million in reductions for budget authority and 
outlays over 10-years, respectively, to reflect the impact of 
an across-the-board rescission affecting the Department of 
Homeland Security that was included in the Consolidated and 
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-
235). The budget resolution recommends no changes in this 
function, leaving it instead at the CBO baseline levels.

                   UNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS


                            Function Summary

    Offsetting receipts to the Treasury are recorded in this 
category as negative budget authority and outlays. Receipts 
appearing here 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 presented are the 
payments Federal agencies make to employee retirement and 
health care 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 category also contains an off-budget component 
that reflects the Federal Government's share of Social Security 
contributions for Federal employees.
    All transactions in this area are recorded as direct 
spending and appear in Function 950 of Table 3. The resolution 
calls for -$90.1 billion in budget authority and outlays in 
fiscal year 2016 (the minus sign indicates receipts flowing 
into the Treasury). Over 10 years, budget authority and outlays 
total -$1.2 trillion.
    On-budget amounts are -$73.5 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2016, and -$959.8 billion in budget 
authority and outlays over ten years.
    Off-budget amounts are -$16.6 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2016, and -$194.8 billion in budget 
authority and outlays over ten years. The major program in the 
off-budget category is Federal agency matching payments for 
retirement contributions on behalf of Federal employees to the 
Federal Old Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust 
Fund--or Social Security. The budget resolution recommends no 
policy changes to the off-budget portion of Function 950.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Federal Fleet Sales. The President's Fiscal Commission 
recommended several ways to achieve savings. This resolution 
accepts 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 2013, the Federal Government 
reported a worldwide inventory of more than 635,000 vehicles 
and spent $4.4 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 
dispose 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 the 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 2 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 2013, the Federal Government owns or leases more 
than 360,000 buildings and 485,000 structures.
    The government has a poor track record for real-estate 
asset sales. The fiscal year 2013 report shows that of the 
21,463 assets the Federal Government disposed of in that year, 
5,412, or about 25 percent, were disposed of by way of 
demolition. Roughly 10 percent were disposed of through a sale. 
Many assets were simply given away at below-market value or 
even for free.
    The resolution 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 these actions are 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.
                         REVENUE AND TAX REFORM

                              ----------                              

    The U.S. tax code is notoriously complex, patently unfair, 
and highly inefficient. Its 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 these problems by calling for a reformed tax code that is 
simpler and fairer, and that promotes growth. A revamped tax 
code could raise just as much revenue as the system in place 
today, but without the harmful tax policies embedded in current 
law (such as the Affordable Care Act). A restructured and more 
efficient tax code would also spark greater economic growth and 
create more jobs.
    The budget resolution's revenue projections--$3.460 
trillion in fiscal year 2016, and $41.670 trillion through 
2025--are built on a tax reform model derived from the 
principles below.

                             The Challenge

    The current tax code is needlessly complex. It is estimated 
that individuals, families, and employers spend more than 6 
billion hours and more than $160 billion a year trying to 
negotiate a labyrinth of special rules, deductions, and tax 
schedules. Over the past decade alone, there have been 4,107 
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 exceed $1 trillion per year. To put 
that figure in perspective, that is nearly the same amount the 
government collected in individual income taxes last year.
    As the tax code has grown in complexity, the IRS has 
increased its funding requests to support an army of tax 
examiners and agents. To cite just one example, the Treasury 
Department requested about $452 million in fiscal year 2015 
simply to administer the tax elements of the Affordable Care 
Act over those 12 months. Nina E. Olson, the National Taxpayer 
Advocate [NTA], has consistently cited the complexity of the 
tax code as one of the most serious problems facing individuals 
and businesses. In the NTA's latest annual report to Congress 
submitted earlier this year, Olson said: ``I believe we need 
fundamental tax reform, sooner rather than later, so the entire 
system does not implode.''\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\National Taxpayer Advocate, Annual Report to Congress, Volume 
1: 2014: http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/Media/Default/Documents/
2014-Annual-Report/Volume-One.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the code 
end 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 is not higher tax rates, but economic 
growth. A sizable majority of economists point out that a tax 
system with a broad tax base and low rates are keys to 
fostering economic growth and competitiveness. Legislators on 
both sides of the aisle agree on this basic principle.
    One 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 effective Federal tax rate on 
such small business income can reach nearly 45 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 slightly more than 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 tax 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--
profit shifting, corporate inversions, and transfer pricing--
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 that does not discriminate against any one 
type of income would boost the competitiveness of U.S. 
companies operating abroad and 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. While the Committee on Ways 
and Means will develop the particulars, these aims can be 
achieved through revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform that 
does the following:

     LSimplifies 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.

     LSubstantially lowers tax rates for individuals 
and consolidates the current seven individual income tax 
brackets into fewer brackets.

     LRepeals the Alternative Minimum Tax.

     LReduces the corporate tax rate.

     LTransitions the tax code to a more competitive 
system of international taxation in a manner that does not 
discriminate against any particular type of income or industry.

    Economists have shown that lowering overall rates and 
broadening the tax base would create greater economic growth 
and support more job creation by the private sector. A faster-
growing economy would greatly help in reducing the budget 
deficit. According to CBO, raising real GDP growth by just 0.1 
percentage point per year would reduce the deficit by $326 
billion over the next decade.
    In addition, Congress should reform our international tax 
system so that it levels the playing field for all U.S. 
businesses competing with foreign competitors, without picking 
winners and losers among industries. This non-discrimination 
principle, however, is not intended to prevent the adoption of 
reasonable anti-avoidance rules.
    This resolution calls for comprehensive tax reform and lays 
out some principles, but 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.
    Congressman Woodall, for instance, has submitted a 
fundamental tax-reform plan for consideration by the Ways and 
Means Committee that would eliminate taxes on wages, 
corporations, self-employment, capital gains, and gift and 
death taxes in favor of a personal consumption tax that would 
provide the economic certainty that American businesses, 
entrepreneurs, and taxpayers desire.
    Congressman Goodlatte has also submitted legislation that 
calls for fundamental, pro-growth tax reform. This legislation 
would shape the debate on tax reform by establishing a 
structure to provide for a tax system that encourages job 
creation and a healthy economy. Without prescribing any 
specific tax system, it calls for a low tax rate for all 
Americans, tax relief for working individuals, protection for 
the rights of taxpayers and a reduction in tax collection 
abuses. Additionally, under this legislation, a tax system 
would support savings and investment, and would not penalize 
marriage or families. Similar legislation has twice passed the 
House of Representatives in previous Congresses and the 114th 
Congress should consider enacting this legislation.
    The committee report recognizes a number of possible 
solutions as Congress works to enact comprehensive tax reform. 
It should recognize the many factors businesses consider when 
they make property and capital investment decisions in the 
United States, such as: cash flow impact, macro-economic 
outlook, duration of investment, and costs of goods and 
services, and the regulatory environment.
    It is no secret that Washington has a spending problem as 
opposed to a revenue problem. This is primarily due to the 
growing costs of health and retirement benefits. Therefore, 
this report discourages proposals offered by some members of 
Congress that seek to raise revenue to finance out of control 
spending. A carbon tax would significantly raise costs for 
individuals and businesses alike. Other proposals, such as a 
financial transaction tax or a bank excise tax, would 
discourage savings and investment and increase the costs of 
individual, family, and employee retirement accounts. This 
committee report recognizes that one way to relieve the ever 
increasing burden of entitlement costs is to encourage 
individuals and families to save. This report recognizes the 
importance of maintaining and strengthening the critical role 
of the private sector in helping all Americans achieve 
retirement security. Tax reform that encourages taxpayers to 
save is pro-growth economic policy and would consequently make 
individual and families less reliant on the Federal Government.
    Congress should consider these and the full range pro-
growth plans as it moves toward implementing the tax reform 
called for under this budget.
                   DIRECT SPENDING TRENDS AND REFORMS

                              ----------                              


                               Background

    Direct spending remains the fastest growing part of the 
spending-driven debt crisis the Nation faces.
    The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] reports that total 
non-interest mandatory spending in fiscal year 2014 was $2,099 
billion and will grow to $3,861 billion by 2025, reflecting an 
average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent--faster than both 
CBO's projection of 2014 nominal economic growth of 4.0 percent 
and CBO's longer-term projection of economic growth of 4.2 
percent. Within overall non-interest mandatory spending, the 
entitlements of Medicare and Social Security are projected to 
continue growing faster than the economy as a whole, with 
Social Security expected to grow from $845 billion in 2014 to 
$1.6 trillion in 2025 and Medicare expected to grow from $600 
billion in 2014 to $1.2 trillion in 2025.
    Over the next decade, the major means-tested entitlements 
are expected to grow by 4.6 percent per year--from $683 billion 
in 2015 to $1.1 trillion in 2025. 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 10 years, 
major means-tested entitlement programs have grown 6.8 percent 
per year, from $354 billion in 2005 to $623 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. Spending is projected to 
remain at elevated levels for several programs--most notably, 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP 
(formerly known as food stamps). Over the past 10 years, the 
SNAP program grew at 8.7 percent annually, ballooning from $33 
billion in 2005 to $76 billion in 2014. While this amount is 
projected to remain steady over the next 10 years, it remains 
at elevated levels compared to prerecession levels.
    Other programs have also seen large increases. 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. As it matured, however, a 
much greater percentage of beneficiaries were under age 18 or 
between the ages of 18 to 64. Over the past decade, spending on 
SSI has grown by 3.7 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 State Children's Health Insurance 
Program [SCHIP]--has grown from $187 billion in 2005 to $310 
billion in 2014. Going forward, the Congressional Budget Office 
[CBO] projects federal Medicaid and CHIP spending to nearly 
double over the next 10 years, from $345 billion in fiscal year 
2015 to $594 billion in fiscal year 2025. 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 6.3 percent a year over the past 10 years, and it is 
projected to grow 5.8 percent a year over the next 10 years. 
This level of growth is clearly unsustainable.

                      The Fiscal Year 2016 Budget

    The fiscal year 2016 budget addresses both non-means-tested 
and means-tested direct spending. Most important, it addresses 
the primary drivers of debt and deficits: the governments 
health programs. For Medicare, this budget advances policies to 
put seniors, not the Federal Government, in control of their 
health care decisions. Future retirees would be able to choose 
from a range of guaranteed coverage options, with private plans 
competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare 
program. Medicare would provide a premium support payment to 
offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior. 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. As with previous budgets, this program will begin 
in 2024 and makes no changes to those in or near retirement.
    For Medicaid, this budget converts the Federal share of 
Medicaid spending into allotments tailored to meet each State's 
needs. State Flexibility Funds would end the misguided one-
size-fits-all approach that ties the hands of State governments 
trying to make their Medicaid programs as effective as 
possible. Moreover, this budget repeals the Medicaid expansions 
in the President's health care law.
    For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this 
budget also calls for converting the current program into a 
flexible allotment tailored to meet each State's needs.
    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 staffs--to make greater contributions toward 
their own retirement.
    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.

               Improving the Accuracy of Budget Estimates

    In addition, the CBO should constantly strive to improve 
and update its estimating practices with respect to both fiscal 
and economic effects. This requires a willingness by the agency 
to advance its methodologies--as it has done in the past. For 
instance, in February of 2014, CBO estimated a significantly 
larger negative employment impact from the Affordable Care Act 
than it had previously done. It did so in part because of the 
work of University of Chicago Economist Casey B. Mulligan, who 
has done extensive work in the area.\99\ Another example is the 
treatment of this budget resolution, which does reflect the 
positive impact of its overall deficit-reducing fiscal policy, 
though it is still based on CBO's independent analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic 
Outlook: 2014 to 2024, February 2014, Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Inaccuracies in cost estimates for direct spending 
legislation are to some degree unavoidable. This is due, in 
part, to the nature of the process. CBO must provide estimates 
in a short period of time for legislation that is sometimes 
very complex. Moreover, the estimates often depend on a wide 
array of difficult-to-predict variables such as individuals' 
behavioral responses to changes in program benefits. Though CBO 
routinely uses probability-based scoring techniques to estimate 
the cost of major legislation, accurate cost estimates for 
direct spending legislation remain elusive. CBO endeavors to 
communicate to the Congress the uncertainty of the agency's 
estimates. The agency also monitors the budgetary effects of 
enacted legislation to help improve projections of spending and 
receipts under current law, as well as to improve cost 
estimates for new legislative proposals.
    Members of Congress have an important role to play as well. 
The Budget Committees in the House and Senate have oversight 
responsibilities over CBO. The committees should make greater 
use of this responsibility, conducting regular review of CBO's 
estimating accuracy of previous and future direct spending 
legislation, as Rep. Foxx (R-NC) has proposed. The committees 
should work with CBO to provide the Congress with periodic 
analyses of such inaccuracies in CBO cost estimates and 
subsequent adjustments going forward.

                                         TABLE 9.--HISTORICAL MEANS-TESTED AND NON MEANS-TESTED DIRECT SPENDING
                                                      [Outlays by fiscal year, billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Estimated      Average
                                                                                                                            ------------------   annual
                                              2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013                       growth
                                                                                                                               2014     2015  ----------
                                                                                                                                               2006-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Programs:
  Health Care Programs:
    Medicaid..............................    182      181      191      201      251      273      275      251      265      301      335         6.3%
    Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidies..      0       11       17       17       19       21       24       20       22       22       24    (\a\)8.9%
    Health insurance subsidies\b,c\.......      0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0       13       28         n.a.
    Children's Health Insurance Program...      5        5        6        7        8        8        9        9        9        9       10         7.3%
                                           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................    187      197      213      225      277      302      308      279      297      346      397         7.8%
  Income Security:
    SNAP..................................     33       35       35       39       56       70       77       80       83       76       78         9.1%
    Supplemental Security Income..........     38       37       36       41       45       47       53       47       53       54       55         3.7%
    Earned income and child tax credits\c\     49       52       54       75       67       77       78       77       79       82       83         5.3%
    Family support and foster care\d\.....     31       30       31       32       33       35       33       30       32       31       31         0.3%
    Child nutrition.......................     13       14       14       15       16       17       18       19       20       20       21         5.1%
                                           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................    163      168      170      202      217      247      260      254      266      263      268         5.1%
  Veterans' pensions......................      4        4        3        4        4        4        5        5        5        6        6         5.0%
    Pell Grants\e\........................      0        0        0        1        2        4       14       12       16        8       11         n.a.
      Subtotal, Means-Tested Programs.....    354      369      386      431      501      557      587      550      584      623      683         6.8%
Non-Means-Tested Programs\f\..............  1,094    1,188    1,242    1,349    1,787    1,553    1,648    1,710    1,752    1,757    1,847         5.4%
      Total Mandatory Outlays\g\..........  1,448    1,556    1,628    1,780    2,288    2,110    2,236    2,260    2,336    2,380    2,530         5.7%
Memorandum:
Pell Grants (Discretionary)...............     13       13       13       15       13       20       21       21       17       23       20         4.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
 
Notes: The average annual growth rate over the 2006-2015 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount recorded in 2005 through the amount
  projected for 2015.
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.
Because October 1 fell on a weekend in 2006, 2007, and 2012, certain federal payments that were due on that date were instead made at the end of the
  preceding September and thus shifted into the previous fiscal year. Those shifts primarily affected outlays for Supplemental Security Income,
  veterans' compensation benefits and pensions, and Medicare.
 
a. The average annual growth rate reflects the program's growth from its inception in 2006 through 2015.
b. Differs from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 from The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2015 to 2025 because it does not include payments
  to health insurance plans for risk adjustment (amounts paid to plans that attract less healthy enrollees) and reinsurance (amounts paid to plans that
  enroll individuals who end up with high costs). Spending for grants to states to establish exchanges is also excluded.
c. Does not include amounts that reduce tax receipts.
d. Includes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Child Support Enforcement program, the Child Care Entitlement program, and other
  programs that benefit children.
e. 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.
f. Does not include offsetting receipts.
g. Does not include outlays associated with federal interest payments, which are not considered part of mandatory spending


                                         TABLE 10.--PROJECTED MEANS-TESTED AND NON MEANS-TESTED DIRECT SPENDING
                                                      [Outlays by fiscal year, billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                Average
                                                                                                                                                 annual
                                              2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020     2021     2022     2023     2024     2025     growth
                                                                                                                                              ----------
                                                                                                                                               2016-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Programs:
  Health Care Programs:
    Medicaid..............................    335      360      384      405      428      452      477      503      530      558      588         5.8%
    Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidies..     24       28       28       28       32       34       37       44       46       46       54         8.4%
    Health insurance subsidies\a,b\.......     28       55       75       86       89       91       97      102      105      109      112        15.1%
    Children's Health Insurance Program...     10       11        6        6        6        6        6        6        6        6        6        -5.9%
                                           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................    397      454      493      524      555      584      617      656      687      719      760         6.7%
  Income Security:
    SNAP..................................     78       78       76       75       74       74       74       73       74       74       75        -0.4%
    Supplemental Security Income..........     55       60       57       54       61       63       64       71       68       65       72         2.7%
    Earned income and child tax                83       85       86       87       75       76       77       78       79       80       82        -0.1%
     credits\b,c\.........................
    Family support and foster care\d\.....     31       32       32       32       33       33       33       34       34       34       35         1.0%
    Child nutrition.......................     21       22       23       24       25       26       27       28       29       31       32         4.3%
                                           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal............................    268      277      274      273      267      271      275      285      284      284      295         1.0%
  Veterans' pensions......................      6        7        6        6        7        7        7        8        7        7        7         2.0%
  Pell Grants\e\..........................     11        6        7        9        9        9        9        9       10       10       10        -1.3%
      Subtotal, Means-Tested Programs.....    683      744      781      811      838      871      909      957      988    1,019    1,072         4.6%
Non-Means-Tested Programs\f\..............  1,847    1,947    2,018    2,094    2,241    2,370    2,516    2,708    2,820    2,933    3,165         5.5%
      Total Mandatory Outlays\g\..........  2,530    2,691    2,799    2,905    3,079    3,241    3,425    3,666    3,808    3,952    4,237         5.3%
Memorandum:
Pell Grants (Discretionary)\h\............     20       27       27       23       24       24       25       25       26       26       27         3.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
 
Notes: The projections shown here are the same as those reported in Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2015 to
  2025 (January 2015). CBO recently updated its baseline projections as reported in Congressional Budget Office, Updated Budget Projections: 2015 to
  2025 (March 2015). Some of the projections are different in the March baseline, but at the request of the committee staff, the projections shown are
  from the January baseline.
The average annual growth rate over the 2016-2025 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount projected for 2015 through the amount projected
  for 2025.
Projections of 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.
Because October 1 will fall on a weekend in 2016, 2017, 2022, and 2023, certain federal payments that are due on that date will instead be made at the
  end of the preceding September and thus be shifted into the previous fiscal year.
Those shifts primarily affect outlays for Supplemental Security Income, veterans' compensation benefits and pensions, and Medicare.
 
a. Differs from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 from The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2015 to 2025 because it does not include payments
  to health insurance plans for risk adjustment (amounts paid to plans that attract less healthy enrollees) and reinsurance (amounts paid to plans that
  enroll individuals who end up with high costs). Spending for grants to states to establish exchanges is also excluded.
b. Does not include amounts that reduce tax receipts.
c. Differs from the amounts reported on Table 3-2 from The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2015 to 2025 because it does not include other tax
  credits that were included in that table.
d. Includes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Child Support Enforcement program, the Child Care Entitlement program, and other
  programs that benefit children.
e. 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.
f. Does not include offsetting receipts.
g. Does not include outlays associated with federal interest payments, which are not considered part of mandatory spending.
h. 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 2015. Outlays for
  future years are based on those amounts of budget authority and also reflect a temporary surplus of budget authority provided in 2015.

                      THE LONG-TERM BUDGET OUTLOOK

                              ----------                              


    The growing probability of a debt crisis is the most urgent 
challenge the United States faces today. The source of the 
crisis is the drift toward ever-expanding government. To avert 
a future debt crisis, Congress needs to stop this encroachment 
and to revive community in American civil society.
    This budget turns the tide. It makes $5.5 trillion in 
spending reductions over the next 10 years. It reforms 
government spending programs responsibly. It protects key 
priorities while eliminating waste. 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 [CBO] has said the current laws and policies 
cannot be sustained. Yet any effort to restrain the growth in 
this spending is cast as ``cut.''
    Under current policy, the Federal Government will spend 
$48.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Under this proposal, it 
will spend roughly $43.2 trillion. 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 5.1 percent. Under this 
budget, it will rise by only 3.3 percent.
    Washington cannot keep spending money it does not have. So 
this budget achieves balance in 2024 and maintains balance in 
2025 by bringing spending down relative to the size of economy, 
to 18.2 percent of GDP in 2024 and 18.3 percent in 2025. To 
achieve this outcome, it puts in place fundamental reforms to 
protect and strengthen Medicare by gradually transitioning the 
program to a premium support model. Along with Medicaid and 
other spending reforms, these changes are critical to putting 
the nation on sound financial footing going forward.
    The spending path assumed in this budget will result in a 
balanced budget in less than 10 years and, according to CBO, 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 2026 will eventually grow to 2.1 percent of GDP by 
2040. At the same time, debt held by the public will decline 
from more than 74 percent of GDP today to 55 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 18.3 
percent of GDP in 2025 to 19 percent of GDP by 2035. After 
that, the budget holds revenue at 19 percent of GDP.
    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: America's national debt.
                     SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION

                              ----------                              

    The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
2016 establishes an overall budgetary framework. As required 
under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 [Budget Act], the 
framework includes aggregate levels of new budget authority, 
outlays, revenues, the amount by which revenues should be 
changed, the surplus or deficit; new budget authority and 
outlays for each major functional category, debt held by the 
public, and debt subject to the statutory limit. This 
resolution also sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
    This resolution provides reconciliation instructions to 
authorizing committees to achieve specified deficit reduction 
targets. It includes rulemaking provisions necessary to enforce 
the resolution, procedures for adjusting the budget resolution, 
provisions to accommodate legislation not assumed in the 
budget, and specifies certain policy assumptions underlying the 
budget.
Section 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.
    Subsection (a) establishes the budgetary levels for fiscal 
year 2016 and each of the nine ensuing fiscal years, 2017 
through 2025. Section 301(a) of the Budget Act stipulates that 
the budget resolution establish budgetary levels for the fiscal 
year for which such resolution is adopted and at least for each 
of the four ensuing fiscal years.
    In addition to the levels set forth in the fiscal year 2016 
budget resolution, this report provides allocations of budget 
authority and outlays, as required under section 302 of the 
Budget Act, to the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee 
on Appropriations, in turn, suballocates this amount to its 
twelve subcommittees for spending on the various programs, 
projects, and activities within the jurisdiction of the 
subcommittees.
    This report provides allocations to each of the authorizing 
committees, with jurisdiction over entitlements and other forms 
of mandatory spending. In addition to an allocation for fiscal 
year 2016, the authorizing committees receive an allocation of 
spending authority over the 10-year period provided for by this 
budget 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.
    Section 101, as required by section 301 of the Budget Act, 
establishes the recommended levels for revenue, the assumed 
change in revenue, total new budget authority, total budget 
outlays, surpluses or deficits, debt subject to the statutory 
limit, and debt held by the public.
    The revenue level 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 for spending 
legislation. The surplus or deficit levels include only on-
budget outlays and revenue and do not include most outlays and 
receipts related to the Social Security program and United 
States Postal Service operations.
    Debt subject to the statutory limit aggregates generally 
refers to the portion of gross Federal debt issued by the 
Treasury to the public or another government fund or account, 
whereas 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.
    Section 102, as required by section 301(a) of the Budget 
Act, establishes the budgetary levels for each major functional 
category for fiscal year 2016 and establishes these levels for 
each of fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
    These major functional categories are:
          050 National Defense
          150 International Affairs
          250 General Science, Space, and Technology
          270 Energy
          300 Natural Resources and Environment
          350 Agriculture
          370 Commerce and Housing Credit
          400 Transportation
          450 Community and Regional Development
          500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
        Services
          550 Health
          570 Medicare
          600 Income Security
          650 Social Security
          700 Veterans Benefits and Services
          750 Administration of Justice
          800 General Government
          900 Net Interest
          920 Allowances
          930 Government-Wide Savings
          950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
          970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
        Terrorism

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Section 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
    Subsection (a) specifies a deadline of July 15, 2015 for 
the authorizing committees to submit reconciliation legislation 
to the Committee on the Budget. These instructions are optional 
procedures permitted under section 301(b) of the Budget Act.
    Subsection (b) includes reconciliation instructions to 13 
authorizing committees, pursuant to section 301 of the Budget 
Act, to achieve specified amounts of deficit reduction. The 
instructed committees have jurisdiction over direct spending 
programs for which savings are assumed in the budget 
resolution. The instructed committees are:
          Committee on Agriculture
          Committee on Armed Services
          Committee on Education and the Workforce
          Committee on Energy and Commerce
          Committee on Financial Services
          Committee on Homeland Security
          Committee on the Judiciary
          Committee on Natural Resources
          Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
          Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
          Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
          Committee on Veteran's Affairs
          Committee on Ways and Means
    This resolution does not reconcile the corresponding Senate 
Committees, but assumes such instructions will be included in 
the Senate budget resolution and carried in the conference 
agreement nor does it include any instruction increasing the 
debt limit.
    The committees are instructed to achieve specified deficit 
reduction targets rather than changes in budget authority, 
outlays, or revenue. While this instruction provides 
flexibility as to how the savings may be scored, the budget 
resolution assumes savings will be achieved through reductions 
in direct spending. The amounts reconciled are intended to 
serve as a floor on required savings, not a ceiling. The 
targets are for the total of the ten-year period of fiscal year 
2016 through 2025. These targets will provide the committees 
maximum flexibility in their savings while ensuring the budget 
is balanced within the ten-year window.
    The reconciled committees are directed to mark up 
legislation that meets their reconciliation target and submit 
legislation to the Committee of the Budget, consistent with 
section 310 of the Budget Act, instead of reporting it directly 
to the House. Other than submitting their legislation to the 
Committee on the Budget, committees are expected to follow 
regular order in complying with House and Committee rules 
related to markup procedures and reporting requirements. The 
Committee on the Budget will then combine the submissions and 
report the bill to the House. Under section 310(b) of the 
Budget Act, the Committee on the Budget must report the 
submissions without substantive revision. While the 
instructions are based on policy assumptions, committees may 
determine their own policies as long as they meet the 
reconciliation targets.
Section 202. Reconciliation procedures.
    Subsection (a) authorizes the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to use the baseline underlying the Congressional Budget 
Office's Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025 (January 
2015) when making any estimates of any bill or joint 
resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference report 
thereon. It also authorizes the Chair of the Committee on the 
budget to determine whether to use any adjustments to the 
baseline, if made subsequent to the adoption of this concurrent 
resolution, when making such estimates.
    Subsection (a) clarifies that this authority should be used 
only if the estimates used to determine compliance of measures 
with budgetary requirements included in this concurrent 
resolution are inaccurate because the adjustments made to the 
baseline are inconsistent with the assumptions underlying 
budgetary levels set forth in this concurrent resolution. 
Inaccurate adjustments may include selected adjustments for 
rulemaking, judicial actions, adjudication, and interpretative 
rules that have major budgetary effects and are inconsistent 
with the assumptions underlying the budgetary levels set forth 
in this concurrent resolution.
    Subsection (a) also requires the Congressional Budget 
Office, upon the request of the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget, to prepare an estimate based on the baseline 
determination made by the Chair.
    Subsection (b) stipulates that the committees instructed to 
submit reconciliation legislation pursuant to section 201(b) of 
this concurrent resolution shall, in preparing their 
submissions, note and determine the most effective methods by 
which the President's health care law shall be repealed in its 
entirety.
    Subsection (c) authorizes the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to file with the House appropriately revised allocations 
under section 302(a) of the Budget Act and revised functional 
levels and aggregates upon an authorizing committee's 
submission to the Committee on the Budget of a recommendation 
complying with its reconciliation instructions pursuant to 
section 310(b) of the Budget Act.
    Subsection (c) also authorizes the Chair of the Committee 
on the Budget to file with the House appropriately revised 
allocations under section 302(a) of the Budget Act and revised 
functional levels and aggregates upon the submission of a 
conference report the House.
    Subsection (c) stipulates that these revised allocations 
and aggregates shall be considered to be the allocations and 
aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
budget pursuant to section 310 of the Budget Act.
Section 203. Additional guidance for reconciliation.
    Section 203 authorizes the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to submit additional information to help guide the 
authorizing committees. This information may include suggested 
increases in the amount of deficit reduction reconciled to each 
authorizing committee.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

Section 301. Submissions of Findings for the Elimination of Waste, 
        Fraud, and Abuse.
    Subsection (a) requires the House committees, named in this 
section and no later than October 1, 2015, to submit findings 
identifying changes in law within their jurisdictions that 
would achieve specified savings through the elimination of 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
    Subsection (b) permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to use these recommendations in the development of 
future concurrent resolutions on the budget and requires such 
Chair to make these recommendations publically available and 
submit them for printing in the Congressional Record.
    Subsection (c) stipulates that the Chair of the Committee 
on the Budget may submit for printing in the Congressional 
Record a specified level of savings for each committee.
    Subsection (d) requires the following House committees to 
submit findings to the Committee on the Budget:
          Committee on Agriculture
          Committee on Armed Services
          Committee on Education and the Workforce
          Committee on Energy and Commerce
          Committee on Financial Services
          Committee on Foreign Affairs
          Committee on Homeland Security
          Committee on House Administration
          Committee on the Judiciary
          Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
          Committee on Natural Resources
          Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
          Committee on Small Business
          Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
          Committee on Veterans' Affairs
          Committee on Ways and Means
    Subsection (e) requires the Comptroller General of the 
Government Accountability Office, no later than August 1, 2015, 
to submit to the Committee on the Budget of the House a 
comprehensive report identifying instances in which the 
committees referred to in subsection (d) may make legislative 
changes to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 
of programs within their jurisdiction.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Section 401. Cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate 
        macroeconomic effects.
    Section 401 extends a House rule that requires estimates 
for major legislation include macroeconomic effects, to the 
Senate.
    Subsections (a) and (b) direct the Congressional Budget 
Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, as applicable, to 
incorporate in the cost estimates for major legislation, to the 
extent practicable, the macroeconomic effects of such 
legislation during fiscal year 2016.
    Subsection (c) stipulates that the macroeconomic estimates 
include, to the extent practicable, a qualitative assessment of 
the budgetary effects (including the variables referred to 
above) of major legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
beginning after the last fiscal year of the most recently 
agreed to budget resolution and an identification of the 
assumptions and source data underlying the estimate.
    Subsection (d) defines major legislation to include 
legislation that causes a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal 
year covered by the budget resolution equal to or greater than 
0.25 percent of the current projected gross domestic product of 
the United States for that fiscal year. Under this subsection, 
the Chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House or 
Senate, as applicable for direct spending legislation, and the 
Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, as 
applicable for revenue legislation, may designate major 
legislation for which estimates would incorporate macroeconomic 
effects.
Section 402. Limitation on measures affecting Social Security solvency.
    Subsection (a) prohibits, during fiscal year 2016, the 
consideration of any legislation that reduces the actuarial 
balance of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) 
Trust Fund by at least .01 percent of the present value of 
future taxable payroll for the 75-year period utilized in the 
most recent annual report of the Board of Trustees.
    Subsection (b) provides an exception if legislation would 
improve the actuarial balance of the combined balance in the 
OASI Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent annual 
report of the Board of Trustees.
Section 403. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
    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 even though both are technically off-budget. 
This language is necessary to ensure the Committee on 
Appropriations retains control over administrative expenses 
through the annual appropriations process. This budgetary 
treatment of administrative expenses is based on the long-term 
practice of the House and Senate Budget Committees.
    Subsection (b) requires the administrative expenses to be 
included in the cost estimates for the relevant appropriations 
measure, which are used to determine if a measure exceeds the 
spending limits in the budget resolution and, as a result, 
subject to points of order.
Section 404. Limitation on transfers from the general fund of the 
        Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund.
    Section 404 stipulates that, for purposes of budget 
enforcement, transfers of funds from the general fund of the 
Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund are counted as new budget 
authority and outlays equal to the amount of the transfer in 
the fiscal year in which the transfer occurs.
Section 405. Limitation on advance appropriations.
    Section 405 provides a limit on appropriations that would 
become effective in fiscal year 2017.
    Subsection (a) prohibits the consideration of any general 
or continuing appropriations measure from making advance 
appropriations unless the appropriation is included in a list 
of exceptions.
    Subsection (b) specifies the list of excluded accounts, 
which may receive advance appropriations, are referred to in 
this report or joint explanatory statement, as applicable, in 
the section designated as ``Accounts Identified for Advance 
Appropriations.''
    Subsection (c) sets an overall limit for allowable advance 
appropriations for fiscal year 2017. It permits advance 
appropriations of up to $63.271 million for fiscal year 2017 
for the veterans accounts referenced in subsection (b) and 
referred to in this report. It also allows up to $28.852 
million in advance appropriations for other accounts referenced 
in subsection (b) and referred to in this report.
    Subsection (d) defines an advance appropriation as any new 
discretionary budget authority provided in a bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report making general or 
continuing appropriations for a fiscal year following fiscal 
year 2016.
Section 406. Fair value credit estimates.
    Subsection (a) requires, upon the request of the Chair or 
Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget, estimates 
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for any measure 
under the terms of title V of the Budget Act to include an 
estimate of the current actual or estimated market values 
representing the ``fair value'' of assets and liabilities 
affected by such measure.
    Subsection (b) requires that, whenever the Congressional 
Budget Office prepares an estimate of the cost of legislation 
with a cost related to housing, residential mortgage, or 
student loan programs, under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 
1990, the estimate include an estimate of the ``fair value'' of 
the assets and liabilities affected.
    Subsection (c) permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to use these supplemental estimates to determine if 
legislation is within the levels of the budget resolution and 
complies with other budgetary controls.
Section 407. Limitation on Long-Term Spending.
    Section 407 establishes a point of order against the 
consideration of any measure reported by an authorizing 
committee that increases direct spending by $5 billion over the 
long-term.
    Subsection (b) states the applicable periods for this 
section are any of the four consecutive ten fiscal year periods 
beginning in fiscal year 2026.
Section 408. Allocations for Overseas Contingency Operations and the 
        Global War on Terrorism.
    Subsection (a) provides the Committee on Appropriations 
with two separate OCO/GWOT allocations for the purposes of 
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism under 
section 302(a) of the Budget Act, which are included in this 
report in allocation tables.
    Subsection (b) stipulates that, for purposes of enforcing 
the point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, the 
``first fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' refers 
to fiscal year 2016 only. This separate allocation is the 
exclusive allocation for OCO/GWOT under section 302(a) of the 
Budget Act. It also stipulates that section 302(c) of the 
Budget Act does not apply to this separate allocation.
    Subsection (c) stipulates that new budget authority or 
outlays counting toward the allocation shall be designated 
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
    Subsection (d) prohibits any adjustment under section 
314(a) of the Budget Act if an adjustment would be made under 
section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA for fiscal year 2016.
Section 409. Adjustments for improved control of budgetary resources.
    Subsection (a) authorizes the Chair of the Budget Committee 
to reduce the a committee's allocation (other than the 
Committee on Appropriations) and increase the Committee on 
Appropriations allocation of discretionary spending for fiscal 
year 2016 if a committee (other than Appropriations) reports 
legislation that decreases direct spending in any fiscal year 
and authorizes appropriations for the same purpose. This 
adjustment would be made upon enactment of the legislation.
    Subsection (b) provides the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget with the authority to determine and adjust, as 
applicable, the budgetary levels of this concurrent resolution 
on the budget.
Section 410. Concepts, aggregates, allocations and application.
    Subsection (a) sets forth the allocation and aggregate 
adjustment procedures required to accommodate legislation 
provided in this resolution. It provides that the adjustments 
apply while the legislation is under consideration and become 
permanent upon enactment of the legislation. These adjustments 
must be printed in the Congressional Record. It also suspends 
section 202 of S. Con. Res. 21 (111th Congress), the fiscal 
year 2008 concurrent resolution on the budget. This rule 
precludes the Senate from reconciling a net reduction in 
revenue or any other measure that may be scored as increasing 
the deficit in either the budget year and four ensuing outyears 
or the current year, budget year, and the nine ensuing 
outyears.
    Subsection (a) also stipulates that the Chair of the 
Committee on the Budget may adjust the allocations, aggregates, 
and other appropriate budgetary levels to reflect changes 
resulting from the Congressional Budget Office's most recently 
published or adjusted baseline. It also defines the ``budget 
year'' as the most recent fiscal year for which a concurrent 
resolution on the budget has been adopted.
    Subsection (b) requires, for purposes of enforcing the 
budget resolution, aggregate and allocation levels resulting 
from adjustments made according to the terms of this resolution 
to have the same effect as if adopted in the originally adopted 
aggregates and allocations. For example, if the budget 
resolution is adjusted for legislation considered pursuant to a 
reserve fund, it is the adjusted levels that are enforced when 
subsequent legislation is considered by the House.
Section 411. Rulemaking powers.
    Section 411 affirms that the adoption of the budget 
resolution is an exercise of the House's rulemaking power and 
that the House has the constitutional right to change these 
rules.

                         TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

    Title V establishes ten reserve funds for health, tax 
reform, trade, education, retirement, and transportation 
legislation. In general, this empowers the Chair of the 
Committee on the Budget to adjust the levels in the budget 
resolution to accommodate specific legislation. In most cases, 
certain conditions must be met in order for the Chair to make 
the adjustment--the most frequent being the legislation be 
deficit neutral over some period. The most important levels 
that are typically adjusted include the revenue floor, the 
ceiling for budget authority, and the 302(a) allocations to 
individual committees. The deficit, debt, and functional 
categories may also be adjusted as appropriate.
Section 501. Reserve fund for the repeal of the President's health care 
        law.
    Section 501 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority and other 
budgetary levels for a measure that fully repeals the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the 
healthcare-related provisions of the Health Care and Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2010 [HCERA 2010] (Public Law 111-152). 
These are the health care bills enacted into law in 2010. These 
adjustments would not be available for legislation that only 
partially repeals 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 HCERA 2010.
    Legislation 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.
    The adjustments may be made for bills, amendments thereto, 
or conference reports. Multiple measures may take advantage of 
the reserve fund, as long as each is for the specified purpose.
    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.
    Adjustments may be made for amendments meeting the 
criteria, but the adjustment would not cover provisions in the 
underlying bill unrelated to repealing these laws.
    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 502. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for promoting real health 
        care reform.
    Section 502 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to 
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary levels 
for a measure that promotes real health care reform as long as 
the measure is deficit-neutral for the period of fiscal years 
2016 through 2025. Those public laws are the health care bills 
enacted in 2010.
Section 503. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare 
        provisions of the President's health care law.
    Section 503 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority provided to 
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary 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 2016 through 2025.
    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 Chair 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 limit 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 504. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the State Children's 
        Health Insurance Program.
    Section 504 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary levels in 
this resolution for a measure that extends the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program as long as such measure does not 
increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 
through 2025.
Section 505. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for graduate medical 
        education.
    Section 505 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary levels in 
this resolution for a measure that reforms, expands, access to, 
and improves, as determined by such Chair, graduate medical 
education programs as long as such measure does not increase 
the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
Section 506. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
    Section 506 permits the Chair 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 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 2016 
through 2025.
Section 507. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
    Section 507 permits the Chair 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 levels in this resolution for legislation that 
reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as long as such 
legislation is deficit-neutral for the period of fiscal years 
2016 through 2026.
Section 508. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
    Section 508 permits the Chair 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 Chair of the Committee on the Budget 
may adjust the allocations and aggregates in this resolution if 
the measure does not increase the deficit over the period of 
fiscal years 2016 through 2025. This allows the Committee on 
Ways and Means to report legislation that reduces revenue below 
the level provided for in this resolution but only if it 
decreases outlays by an equal or greater amount in the 
applicable period.
Section 509. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and 
        increase opportunity and upward mobility.
    Section 509 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary 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 2016 through 2025.
Section 510. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.
    Section 510 permits the Chair 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 2016 through 
2025.
Section 511. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Federal retirement 
        reform.
    Section 511 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary levels in 
this resolution for a measure that reforms, improves and 
updates, as determined by the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget, the Federal retirement system as long as such measure 
does not increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 
2016 through 2025.
Section 512. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for national defense.
    Section 512 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary levels in 
this resolution for any legislation that supports the 
activities specified below as long as such legislation is 
deficit-neutral (without counting any net revenue increases in 
that measure) for the periods of fiscal years 2016 through 2021 
or fiscal years 2016 through 2025. The activities that may be 
supported in legislation under this reserve fund include: 
Department of Defense training and maintenance associated with 
combat readiness, temporary increases in end strength, 
modernization of equipment, auditability of financial 
statements, or military compensation recommendations.
Section 513. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for overseas contingency 
        operations/global war on terrorism.
    Section 513 permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary levels in 
this resolution for any legislation related to the support of 
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism by the 
amounts provided in such legislation in excess of $73.5 billion 
but not to exceed $94 billion, as long as such measure does not 
increase the deficit (without counting any net revenue 
increases in that measure) over the period of fiscal years 2016 
through 2025.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

    Title VI is required under the Separate Orders of H. Res. 5 
(114th Congress), which implements the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, and is a requirement for the consideration of 
a concurrent resolution on the budget in the 114th Congress. 
See section designated ``Direct Spending Trends and Reforms'' 
within this report for more information on Title V.
Section 601. Direct spending.
    Subsection (a) provides the average and estimated average 
rate of growth in means-tested direct spending for the 10-year 
periods before and after fiscal year 2016, respectively. It 
also proposes reforms to the means-tested category of direct 
spending.
    Subsection (b) provides the average and estimated average 
rate of growth in non-means-tested direct spending for the 10-
year periods before and after fiscal year 2016, respectively. 
It also proposes reforms to the non-means-tested category of 
direct spending.

                TITLE VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Section 701. Long-term budgeting.
    Section 701 sets 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: 18.7 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: 19.0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 19.0 percent

                             BUDGET OUTLAYS

          Fiscal Year 2030: 18.4 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: 17.8 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 16.9 percent

                                DEFICITS

          Fiscal Year 2030: -0.3 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: -1.2 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: -2.1 percent

                                  DEBT

          Fiscal Year 2030: 44.0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2035: 32.0 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 18.0 percent

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

Section 801. Policy statement on balanced budget amendment.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is for Congress to pass a joint 
resolution establishing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, requiring an annual balanced 
budget, and to send such joint resolution to the States for 
approval.
Section 802. Policy statement on the budget process and baseline 
        reforms.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy of this concurrent 
resolution that Congress must restructure its procedures of 
budget decision making and reassert its role as the 
government's spending authority.
    Subsection (c) stipulates that Congress must reform the 
budget process and remove the bias in the baseline against the 
extension of current tax laws.
    Subsection (d) states that the Committee on the Budget 
intends to offer legislation during the 114th Congress that 
revises and rewrites the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974.
Section 803. 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 urging reform of the current tax code and its 
overly burdensome regulations.
Section 804. Policy statement on tax reform.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on comprehensive tax 
reform that promotes economic growth, creates American jobs, 
increases wages, and benefits American consumers, investors, 
and workers assumed by this concurrent resolution on the 
budget.
Section 805. 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 806. 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 to ensure 
sustainable solvency of the fund.
    Subsection (c) states the policy on the Disability 
Insurance program assumed by this concurrent resolution on the 
budget to reform the program and to work towards fixing the 
looming insolvency before it occurs in 2016.
    Subsection (d) states the policy on Social Security 
solvency must be assured and improved in any legislation 
Congress considers regarding the Disability Insurance program.
Section 807. Policy statement on replacing the President's health care 
        law and promoting real health care reform.
    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 should be fully repealed and have 
Congress pursue real health care reforms.
Section 808. Policy statement on Medicare.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is to preserve the program for those 
in or near retirement and strengthen the program for future 
beneficiaries.
    Subsection (c) sets forth the assumptions of this 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the parameters of 
future Medicare reforms.
Section 809. Policy statement on medical discovery, development, 
        delivery and innovation.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings on medical discovery, 
development, delivery and innovation.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is to support the work of medical 
innovators, including private-sector innovators, medical 
centers and the National Institutes of Health, and their 
research.
Section 810. Policy statement on Federal regulatory reform.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on Federal regulation by 
this concurrent resolution on the budget that the public is 
currently burdened by excessive regulation and that Congress 
should enact legislation protecting the public from additional, 
unnecessary regulation.
Section 811. Policy statement on higher education 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 812. Policy statement on Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution in the budget is to support the continued oversight 
efforts of the Department of Veterans by Congress and its 
committees.
Section 813. Policy statement on Federal accounting methodologies.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the policy on the Federal accounting 
methodologies in this concurrent resolution on the budget is to 
reform current budget and accounting practices to allow for 
greater transparency.
Section 814. Policy statement on scorekeeping for outyear budgetary 
        effects in appropriations acts.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is to more effectively allocate and 
accurately enforce budget targets by agreeing to a scorekeeping 
procedure for outyear budgetary effects in appropriations acts 
to more effectively allocate and accurately enforce budget 
targets. The Committee on the Budget tasks the relevant 
committees to consult and offer recommendations for 
implementation in fiscal year 2017.
Section 815. Policy statement on reducing unnecessary, wasteful, and 
        unauthorized spending.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that each authorizing 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. Each Congressional Committee shall also annually 
review its programs to ensure they are operating efficiently 
and effectively.
Section 816. 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 817. Policy statement on agency fees and spending.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget is for Congress to reassert is 
constitutional prerogative to control spending and conduct 
oversight.
Section 818. 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 819. Policy statement on ``No Budget, No Pay''.
    Section 819 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 Budget Act. Section 819 further states that 
if, by April 15, a House of Congress has not agreed to a 
concurrent resolution in the budget, the payroll administrator 
should withhold compensation for Members of Congress, 
consistent with the provisions of Public Law 113-3, the No 
Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.
Section 820. Policy statement on national security funding.
    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states that the policy of the concurrent 
resolution on the budget is to provide additional funding for 
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism over 
the next decade, in excess of the President's Five Year Defense 
Plan.
    Subsection (c) prioritizes national defense funding and the 
needs of our military and soldiers through the creation of the 
``Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund.''
    Subsection (d) encourages the immediate reevaluation of 
Federal Government spending priorities to ensure the continued 
strength of our national security, while ensuring the 
availability funding despite the current sequester for national 
defense funding.
                    THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

                              ----------                              


    The spending and revenue levels established in the budget 
resolution are implemented through two parallel, but separate, 
mechanisms: allocations to the authorizing and appropriations 
committees, and, when necessary, reconciliation directives to 
the authorizing committees.
    As required under section 302(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, the direct spending levels in the budget 
resolution are allocated to each of the authorizing committees 
in each House of Congress with direct spending authority. The 
resolution's discretionary spending levels are allocated to the 
Committee on Appropriations.
    These allocations are included in the report accompanying 
the budget resolution, and 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--for example, health, 
retirement, 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.
    Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
modified by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, requires that 
allocations of budget authority be provided in the report 
accompanying a budget resolution for the 1st fiscal year for 
which it is adopted and at least the 4 ensuing fiscal years 
(except for the Committee on Appropriations, which receives an 
allocation for only the budget year). This budget resolution 
provides allocations of budget authority and outlays for fiscal 
year 2016 and each of the 9 ensuing fiscal years, fiscal years 
2017 through 2025.

                         Authorizing Committees

    The report (or the joint statement of managers for a 
conference report) accompanying the concurrent resolution on 
the budget allocates to the authorizing committees an amount of 
new budget authority along with the attendant outlays required 
to fund the direct spending within each authorizing committee's 
jurisdiction. If increases in spending are required within a 
committee's jurisdiction, then the committee may be allocated 
additional budget authority. 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 established in the 
budget resolution are for the fiscal year for which it is 
adopted and the nine ensuing fiscal years. This budget 
resolution provides allocations for authorizing committees for 
fiscal year 2016, commencing on 1 October 2015, and the 9 
ensuing fiscal years, fiscal years 2017 through 2025.
    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 2016 are measured against the 
level for that year included in the fiscal year 2016 budget 
resolution and also the 10 fiscal year period, fiscal years 
2016 through 2025.

                      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

    Unlike authorizing committees, the spending authority for 
the Committee on Appropriations is a lump sum of discretionary 
budget authority established in the budget resolution for the 
fiscal year for which it is adopted and corresponding outlays. 
Therefore, this budget resolution provides allocations to the 
Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2016, commencing on 
1 October 2015.

                           302(B) ALLOCATIONS

    Once a 302(a) allocation is provided to the Committee on 
Appropriations by the budget resolution for the fiscal year for 
which a budget resolution is adopted, the Committee on 
Appropriations is required to divide this allocation among its 
subcommittees. Although the number of subcommittees has varied 
over time, for fiscal year 2016 there are 12. 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 that 
provides budget authority for programs within its jurisdiction 
for the fiscal year for which a budget resolution is adopted 
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 Committee on Appropriations. This 
additional suballocation must be an amount in the form of a 
positive whole number.
    Under section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, appropriations acts may not be considered on the floor of 
the House before these 302(b) suballocations are made.
    In general, unless enacted, bills and conference reports 
cease to exist at the end of each Congress (in the House of 
Representatives). Concurrent resolutions that have been enacted 
also cease to exist at the end of each Congress, but when a new 
Congress convenes, concurrent resolutions are extended through 
the organizing resolution of the new Congress. In this way, the 
Budget Resolution is extended into the new Congress. The budget 
year, thus, may change, but for purposes of enforcement, the 
first fiscal year for the budget resolution remains the same.

    TABLE 11.--ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
                             APPROPRIATIONS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Discretionary Action:
  BA.......................................................    1,016,582
  OT.......................................................    1,139,891
Global War on Terrorism:
  BA.......................................................       73,500
  OT.......................................................       32,640
Current Law Mandatory:
  BA.......................................................      952,580
  OT.......................................................      940,993
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             TABLE 12.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE
               [On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2016          2016-2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          13,649         651,197
    OT..................................          12,470         645,581
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................          -3,878        -201,097
    OT..................................          -2,417        -198,219
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           9,771         450,100
      OT................................          10,053         447,362
                                         ===============================
Armed Services:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................         156,087       1,806,890
    OT..................................         160,284       1,805,025
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         156,087       1,806,890
      OT................................         160,284       1,805,025
                                         ===============================
Financial Services:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          14,268         113,856
    OT..................................           2,536         -49,508
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................          -8,085         -64,850
    OT..................................          -7,461         -64,652
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           6,183          49,006
      OT................................          -4,925        -114,160
                                         ===============================
Education & Workforce:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          -6,156          14,318
    OT..................................          -8,973           1,594
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................          -9,953        -228,200
    OT..................................          -3,890        -207,324
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         -16,109        -213,882
      OT................................         -12,863        -205,730
                                         ===============================
Energy & Commerce:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................         407,178       5,377,268
    OT..................................         415,257       5,378,310
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -57,435      -2,143,334
    OT..................................         -51,944      -2,132,928
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         349,743       3,233,934
      OT................................         363,313       3,245,382
                                         ===============================
Foreign Affairs:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          25,725         229,558
    OT..................................          25,141         226,094
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................          25,725         229,558
      OT................................          25,141         226,094
                                         ===============================
Oversight & Government Reform:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................         113,388       1,342,994
    OT..................................         112,012       1,323,034
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -10,730        -229,285
    OT..................................         -10,567        -229,194
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         102,658       1,113,709
      OT................................         101,445       1,093,840
                                         ===============================
Homeland Security:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................           2,034          23,810
    OT..................................           2,046          24,015
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................            -195          -5,365
    OT..................................            -102          -4,799
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           1,839          18,445
      OT................................           1,944          19,216
                                         ===============================
House Administration:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................              41             351
    OT..................................              12             106
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................              41             351
      OT................................              12             106
                                         ===============================
Natural Resources:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................           5,788          59,667
    OT..................................           6,530          63,511
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................          -1,805         -31,956
    OT..................................          -1,475         -31,475
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           3,983          27,711
      OT................................           5,055          32,036
                                         ===============================
Judiciary:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          24,716         117,355
    OT..................................          14,214         122,710
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -14,599         -61,929
    OT..................................            -999         -60,125
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................          10,117          55,426
      OT................................          13,215          62,585
                                         ===============================
Transportation & Infrastructure:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................          70,799         722,559
    OT..................................          16,435         185,131
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -48,635        -148,602
    OT..................................             -55          -1,080
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................          22,164         573,957
      OT................................          16,380         184,051
                                         ===============================
Science, Space & Technology:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................             108           1,017
    OT..................................             106           1,017
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................               0               0
    OT..................................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................             108           1,017
      OT................................             106           1,017
                                         ===============================
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..................................           3,229          97,502
    OT..................................           7,204         103,084
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................             -31          -1,925
    OT..................................             -31          -1,925
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................           3,198          95,577
      OT................................           7,173         101,159
                                         ===============================
Ways & Means:
  Current Law:
    BA..................................       1,034,496      15,146,759
    OT..................................       1,034,176      15,145,626
  Resolution Change:
    BA..................................         -50,544      -1,123,009
    OT..................................         -51,215      -1,122,264
                                         -------------------------------
    Total:
      BA................................         983,952      14,023,750
      OT................................         983,961      14,023,362
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             RECONCILIATION

                              ----------                              


    Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
U.S.C. 641) sets out a special procedure that allows a 
concurrent resolution on the budget to direct one or more 
authorizing committees to produce legislation that changes 
direct spending, revenue, or the debt limit to bring these 
levels into compliance with budget resolution policies. 
Reconciliation directives must be included in a concurrent 
resolution on the budget adopted by both Houses to be valid.
    In general, reconciliation directives include the amount of 
budgetary change to be achieved; the time period over which 
such budgetary change should be measured; and a deadline by 
which the authorizing committees must report legislation. When 
more than one authorizing committee receives reconciliation 
directives, each committee considers a bill to comply with 
these directives as it would any other bill, but the 
legislative text and other materials are submitted to the 
Committee on the Budget instead of being reported to the House. 
The Committee on the Budget then incorporates all submissions 
together, without any substantive revision, into a single bill 
and reports it to the House. If the reconciliation directive 
instructs only a single authorizing committee, then that 
committee's bill is reported directly to the House and is not 
submitted to the Committee on the Budget.
    In the House, the Committee on Rules reports a special rule 
governing the consideration of a reconciliation bill. 
Typically, the rule will allow for 2 or 3 hours of general 
debate equally divided. The Committee on the Budget determines 
whether an authorizing committee is in compliance with its 
reconciliation directives and relies solely on the 
Congressional Budget Office's estimates when determining 
compliance. Under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, authorizing committees must comply with reconciliation 
directives. If an authorizing committee does not comply with 
its directives, the Committee on Rules may make in order 
amendments that achieve required budgetary changes pursuant to 
section 311(d)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    A reconciliation bill is a privileged measure in the 
Senate. Distinct from most Senate bills, debate is limited to 
20 hours and only requires a simple majority to pass (51 votes) 
rather than the 60 votes otherwise required for cloture.
    In the Senate, the ``Byrd Rule'' (section 313 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974) limits the content of a 
reconciliation bill. Under the Byrd Rule, provisions that are 
considered extraneous can be stricken from the bill unless 60 
Senators vote to waive it. If a provision is found to violate 
the Byrd Rule, it is removed from the bill or conference report 
unless 60 Senators vote to waive it.
    This Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 
2016, as reported by the Committee on the Budget, provides for 
such reconciliation legislation. It instructs 13 authorizing 
committees to submit changes in law necessary to achieve 
specified amounts of deficit reduction. Each authorizing 
committee must submit legislative text and associated material 
to the Committee on the Budget by 15 July 2015.
    For a detailed description of the reconciliation directives 
included in this concurrent resolution on the budget, see Title 
II of the Section-by-Section Description.
                   STATUTORY CONTROLS OVER THE BUDGET

                              ----------                              


    Since 1985, a series of statutory budget controls has been 
superimposed over the congressional budget process through the 
enactment of, and subsequent amendments to, the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 [BBEDCA]. This law 
has been amended several times and generally serves as the 
primary vehicle for statutory controls over the budget.

                   The 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 by Presidential 
order if the deficit targets were exceeded. Under BBEDCA, a 
Presidential sequestration order must occur within 15 days 
after the end of a session of Congress. Sequestration remained 
in force for laws enacted through the end of fiscal year 2002.

                   The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990

    The Budget Enforcement Act [BEA] of 1990 replaced the 
maximum spending limits originally in BBEDCA with annual limits 
on discretionary spending and controls over increases in the 
deficit, calculated by adding together for each fiscal year 
increases in direct spending and decreases in revenues, termed 
``pay-as-you-go.''
    The BEA established separate limits for discretionary 
appropriations, separated out into three separate categories: 
domestic, defense, and international affairs. These 
discretionary categories were through fiscal year 1993, and 
then combined into a single limit on all appropriations for 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
    Under pay-as-you-go, 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 
the fiscal year following that session would cause a 
sequestration of direct spending by that amount. As with the 
Maximum Deficit Amounts before it, most spending defined as 
``direct'' was exempt from any reductions. Other spending 
programs had limitations on the reductions. For example, 
spending decreases in the Medicare program, under pay-as-you-
go, was limited to 4 percent of the program costs.

             The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act [OBRA] of 1993 
extended a single limit on discretionary spending through 
fiscal year 1998. Any breach of the cap would cause a 
sequestration (again, an across-the-board cut in all nonexempt 
discretionary programs). Programs under 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.

                    The Balanced Budget Act of 1997

    The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 [BBA 1997] again revised 
and extended the levels of discretionary spending limits. As 
amended by OBRA 1993, these limits would have expired at the 
end of fiscal year 1998. BBA 1997 modified the discretionary 
spending limits for fiscal year 1998 and extended them through 
fiscal year 2002. Similarly, the pay-as-you-go requirements 
were extended for legislation enacted through the end of fiscal 
year 2002. The sequestration enforcement mechanism lasted 
through the end of fiscal year 2006 for such legislation, but 
it was turned off by P.L. 107-312, enacted December 2, 2002.
    BBA 1997 also made numerous technical changes in both the 
congressional budget process and sequestration procedures that 
enforce the discretionary spending limits and pay-as-you-go 
requirements.
    BBA 1997 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 designed 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.
    The adjustments are made in the President's final 
sequestration report issued 15 days after the end of a session 
of Congress.
    Subsequently, additional spending categories for certain 
transportation and conservation spending were added and 
provided for specific spending amounts for these programs. 
While the transportation spending limit was ostensibly a cap on 
funding, it also served the purpose of calculating the levels 
of spending that flowed from the Highway Trust Fund.

                The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

    No further legislation was enacted to re-establish 
statutory controls on spending and revenue until 2010, when on 
10 February 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. The measure amended 
sections of BBEDCA, including the sequester base, but it did 
not establish new discretionary spending limits.

                     The Budget Control Act of 2011

    Enacted on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act [BCA] of 
2011, enacted on 2 August 2011, set statutory controls on 
spending, primarily making BBEDCA permanent in its entirety, 
and re-established discretionary spending limits for fiscal 
years 2012 through 2021. These discretionary spending limits 
for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 were divided into ``security'' 
and ``non-security'' categories.\1\ The remaining years were 
set as a single discretionary general category. The BCA also 
authorized an increase in the public debt limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Section 102 of the act defines the ``security'' category as 
comprising discretionary appropriations for the Department of Defense, 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the intelligence 
community management account, and all budget accounts in Function 150, 
International Affairs. All other discretionary appropriations were 
grouped together in the non-security category. These were replaced with 
``revised'' security and nonsecurity'' limits on spending for programs 
which fall inside Function 050, Defense, and outside that function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BCA also included additional procedures that had the 
effect of altering the caps under 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 under the BCA would reduce the 
deficit, including savings from debt service, by $917 billion 
over the 10 fiscal year period covering 2012 through 2021.
    The BCA also established a Joint Select Committee on 
Deficit Reduction tasked with reporting legislation to reduce 
the federal deficit by an additional $1.5 trillion over a 10-
year period ending in fiscal year 2021, which would have been 
considered under procedures limiting amendment and debate. 
Under the BCA, if legislation reported by the Joint Committee 
reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion was not enacted, 
then a sequestration would be ordered, adjusting the 
discretionary caps downward and calculating an amount of 
reductions in direct spending necessary to achieve this amount 
(or a portion thereof if legislation from the Joint Committee 
achieving some deficit reduction was enacted). The Joint 
Committee failed to report any proposals reducing the deficit 
by any amount, and no legislation to that purpose was enacted 
by the required 15 January 2012 deadline. As a result, the 
Joint Committee ceased to exist and the automatic spending 
reduction process was triggered.
    This process established new caps and definitions of 
security and nonsecurity (now effectively defense and 
nondefense, though the previous terms are still used) and 
replaced the statutory discretionary caps. These categories 
have replaced the discretionary general category through 2021.
    This process had two components: sequestration and reducing 
the discretionary spending limits. To achieve the $1.2 trillion 
in deficit reduction, spending reductions, calculated by OMB, 
were scheduled to occur absent a change in law.
    Because 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, this number is then 
reduced by 18 percent to account for the reduced cost of debt 
service attributable to the lower level of spending. The 
remaining amount is then divided by nine to account for each of 
fiscal years 2013 through 2021. This amount is then divided by 
two to evenly distribute reductions between defense and 
nondefense accounts.
    The spending reductions are then 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. As a result, 
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 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 years 2014 through 
2021: these reductions occur through revising the spending 
limits downward for each of those fiscal years.

                The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

    As part of an agreement to make permanent most tax policies 
first enacted in 2001 and 2003 but scheduled to expire at the 
end of 2012,\2\ the American Taxpayer Relief Act [ATRA] of 2012 
included certain budget process provisions. ATRA reduced the 
BCA fiscal year 2013 sequester by $24 billion--from $109.33 
billion to $85.33 billion for that fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\These tax policies were temporary because they were enacted 
under the budget reconciliation process. Section 313 of the 
Congressional Budget Act--known as the ``Byrd Rule''--prohibits 
spending and tax legislation enacted in reconciliation from increasing 
the projected deficit outside the 10-year budget window compared to 
what it would have been without those tax policies. Consequently those 
tax relief policies were required to expire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 
occurs 15 days after the end of a session of Congress) until 17 
March 2013. This BBEDCA sequester enforces the spending limit 
categories rather than requiring a sequester of a nominal 
amount for fiscal year 2013 as under the BCA--and applied 
regardless of where spending is relative to the spending 
limits. It also reset discretionary spending limit categories 
for fiscal years 2013 and 2014, lowering the total by $4 
billion and $8 billion respectively.
    The President ordered the fiscal year 2013 BCA sequester, 
as required by law, on 1 March 2013.

                   The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

    As a result of the budget conference negotiations between 
House Chairman Ryan and Senate Chairman Murray, the Bipartisan 
Budget Act [BBA] of 2013 increased the discretionary spending 
limits for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 by amending section 251 
of BBEDCA. The BBA 2013 agreement provided $63 billion in 
sequester relief over 2 years, split evenly between defense and 
non-defense programs. BBA 2013 set defense discretionary 
spending at $520.5 billion and non-defense discretionary 
spending at $491.8 billion for fiscal year 2014. For 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 
direct spending elsewhere in the budget. BBA 2013 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 establishes 
allocations of spending authority and aggregate levels of both 
spending authority and revenues that are binding on 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 may also include 
special procedures in order to enforce Congressional budgetary 
decisions.
    The levels established in the budget resolution are not 
self-enforcing. Members of the House must raise points of order 
against legislation that breaches the allocations and aggregate 
spending levels established in the budget resolution. If a 
point of order is sustained, the House may not further consider 
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 measures the budget effects of 
legislation in the fiscal year for which a concurrent 
resolution on the budget is adopted, and the period of that 
first fiscal year and no fewer than the four ensuing fiscal 
years (though the nine ensuing fiscal years is now typical). 
For appropriations bills, however, the test measures the budget 
effects in 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. Legislation that 
changes revenue or increases budget authority in a fiscal year 
for which a budget resolution has not been adopted, violates 
section 303(a). Section 303(a) does not apply to budget 
authority and revenue provisions first effective in a year 
following the first fiscal year to which a budget resolution 
would apply, or to appropriation bills after 15 May.

                              SECTION 311

    Section 311 prohibits the consideration of legislation that 
would exceed the aggregate spending limits of budget authority 
and outlays, or 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.
    Additionally, 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 budget controls in the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, as applied through the concurrent resolution on 
the budget, there are additional budget controls found in the 
Rules of the House of Representatives and in the Separate 
Orders of the House.

                         CLAUSE 8 OF RULE XIII

    This clause requires the Congressional Budget Office and 
Joint Committee on Taxation to incorporate the macroeconomic 
effects of major legislation into the official cost estimates 
used for budget enforcement and other rules 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 Act of 1974) that 
would cause a net increase in direct spending.

                         CLAUSE 10 OF RULE XXI

    This clause prohibits the consideration of legislation that 
increases direct spending over a 6-year period or an 11-year 
period. If such spending is increased in those time periods, 
then it must be offset by corresponding spending decreases. If 
an amendment is offered to a measure that decreases direct 
spending in either of those periods, then the amendment must 
also decrease net spending by at least the same amount.

                         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 114TH CONGRESS

    House Resolution 5 adopted the rules from the 113th 
Congress and incorporated additional provisions related to the 
budget process.
    Section 3(d) maintains the requirement, from the 112th and 
113th Congresses, that each general appropriations bill include 
a ``spending reduction'' account. This ``spending reduction 
account'' provides a recitation of the amount by which, through 
the amendment process, the House has reduced spending in other 
portions of the bill and indicate that those savings be counted 
toward spending reduction. It also provides that any amendment 
increasing spending relative to the underlying bill must 
include an offset of an equal or greater value.
    Section 3(h) carries forward the requirement from the 113th 
Congress that a concurrent resolution on the budget include a 
section related to means-tested and nonmeans-tested direct 
spending programs. Additionally, the Chair of the Committee on 
the Budget must submit for printing in the Congressional Record 
a statement defining these terms prior to the consideration of 
such concurrent resolution. This requirement also applies to 
any amendments to or conference reports on a concurrent 
resolution on the budget.
    Section 3(q) prohibits the consideration of any legislation 
that reduces the actuarial balance of the Federal Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund unless such legislation improves 
the overall financial health of the combined Social Security 
Trust Funds.
                        ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR
                         ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

                              ----------                              


             Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations
                          for Fiscal Year 2017

            (SUBJECT TO A GENERAL LIMIT OF $28,852,000,000)

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

             Veterans Discretionary Accounts Identified for
              Advance Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017

            (SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE LIMIT OF $63,271,000,000)

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
          Veterans Medical Services
          Veterans Medical Support and Compliance
          Veterans 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 2016.
    On March 18-19, 2015 the Committee met in open session, a 
quorum being present.
    Mr. Rokita 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 Price 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 2016. The Committee on 
the Budget took the following votes:
    1. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Norcross, and Moulton 
establishing a deficit-neutral reserve fund to boost paychecks 
of the middle class and those working to get into the middle 
class by providing tax relief for working Americans. It also 
expresses a sense of the House that Congress should enact 
legislation that incentivizes companies to give workers annual 
raises that, on average, keep pace with increases in the cost 
of living.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes to 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Dingell, Norcross, 
and Moulton expressing a sense of the House rejecting an 
increase in taxes on the middle class.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes to 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment offered by Representatives Norcross, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, and Moulton 
to assume pre-sequester levels for non-defense and defense 
spending.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
for Function 050. Budget authority would increase by $38.290 
billion for fiscal year 2016. Outlays would increase by the 
following amounts: $24.314 billion for fiscal year 2016, $7.964 
billion for fiscal year 2017, $3.063 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $1.417 billion for fiscal year 2019, and $1.110 billion 
for fiscal year 2020.
    The amendment would also increase budget authority and 
outlays for Function 920. Budget authority would increase by 
$36.509 billion for fiscal year 2016. Outlays would increase by 
the following amounts: $19.240 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$11.099 billion for fiscal year 2017, $3.432 billion for fiscal 
year 2018, $1.132 billion for fiscal year 2019, and $0.986 
billion for fiscal year 2020.
    The amendment would also decrease budget authority and 
outlays for Function 970. Budget authority would decrease by 
$36.003 billion for fiscal year 2016. Outlays would decrease by 
the following amounts: $22.862 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$7.489 billion for fiscal year 2017, $2.880 billion for fiscal 
year 2018, $1.332 billion for fiscal year 2019, and $1.044 
billion for fiscal year 2020.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes to 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An amendment offered by Representatives Moulton, Van 
Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Dingell, and Lieu to increase 
discretionary budget authority and outlays for Function 700 to 
reflect the President's budget. The amendment also makes all 
discretionary programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs 
subject to advance appropriations.
    The amendment would increase discretionary budget authority 
and outlays for Function 700. Budget authority would increase 
by the following amounts: $1.856 billion for fiscal year 2016 
and $4.434 billion for fiscal year 2017. Outlays would increase 
by the following amounts: $0.933 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$2.756 billion for fiscal year 2017, $1.456 billion for fiscal 
year 2018, $0.561 billion for fiscal year 2019, $0.243 billion 
for fiscal year 2020, and $0.197 billion for fiscal year 2021.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by eliminating tax deductions for U.S. businesses with 
international operations, increasing taxes on high-income 
individuals, and making reforms to the tax code by eliminating 
certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes to 21 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                                .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham, 
Van Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, and 
Dingell expressing a sense of the House relating to Medicare.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 11 
ayes to 20 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN                              LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                                .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. An amendment offered by Representatives Dingell, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan and Lujan 
Grisham to increase Medicaid funding.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 550. Budget authority and outlays would 
each increase by the following amounts: $0 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $45 billion for fiscal year 2017, $66 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $76 billion for fiscal year 2019, $87 billion 
for fiscal year 2020, $97 billion for fiscal year 2021, $113 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $129 billion for fiscal year 
2023, $140 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $161 billion for 
fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment is offset with tax increases, which include 
eliminating tax deductions for U.S. businesses with 
international operations, increasing taxes on high-income 
individuals, and making reforms to the tax code by eliminating 
certain business expense deductions, which would offset a 
portion of the budget outlays.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12 
ayes to 20 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN                              LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                                .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van 
Hollen, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan and Dingell to increase 
spending to keep health care coverage affordable.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 550 each by the following amounts: $36 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $49 billion for fiscal year 2017, 
$56 billion for fiscal year 2018, $58 billion for fiscal year 
2019, $59 billion for fiscal year 2020, $62 billion for fiscal 
year 2021, $65 billion for fiscal year 2022, $68 billion for 
fiscal year 2023, $71 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $74 
billion for fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment would increase revenues by eliminating tax 
deductions for U.S. businesses with international operations, 
increasing taxes on high-income individuals, and making reforms 
to the tax code by eliminating certain business expense 
deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes to 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, 
Dingell and Lieu to increase spending on the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 600 each by the following amounts: $24.2 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $24.5 billion for fiscal year 
2022, $24.9 billion for fiscal year 2023, $25.4 billion for 
fiscal year 2024, and $26.0 billion for fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment is offset with tax increases, which include 
eliminating tax deductions for U.S. businesses with 
international operations, increasing taxes on high-income 
individuals, and making reforms to the tax code by eliminating 
certain business expense deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes to 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Van Hollen, 
Pascrell, Moore, McDermott, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, and Norcross 
expressing a sense of the House relating to poverty.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12 
ayes to 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. An amendment offered by Representatives Castor, Van 
Hollen, Yarmuth, Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Dingell, 
Lieu, Norcross, and Moulton relating to funding for the 
National Institutes of Health.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 550. Budget authority would increase by 
the following amounts: $1.819 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$2.514 billion for fiscal year 2017, $3.162 billion for fiscal 
year 2018, $3.865 billion for fiscal year 2019, $4.584 billion 
for fiscal year 2020, $5.356 billion for fiscal year 2021, 
$6.194 billion for fiscal year 2022, $7.063 billion for fiscal 
year 2023, $7.967 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $8.933 
billion for fiscal year 2025.
    Outlays for Function 550 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.915 billion for fiscal year 2016, $1.264 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $2.303 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$3.120 billion for fiscal year 2019, $3.845 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $4.665 billion for fiscal year 2021, $5.434 billion 
for fiscal year 2022, $6.246 billion for fiscal year 2023, 
$7.098 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $8.002 billion for 
fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment would increase revenues by eliminating tax 
deductions for U.S. businesses with international operations, 
increasing taxes on high-income individuals, and making reforms 
to the tax code by eliminating certain business expense 
deductions.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12 
ayes to 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Lee, Pocan, Dingell, and Norcross to increase 
mandatory budget authority and outlays for Function 550 to 
ensure Medicaid and Medicare 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 2016 through 2025.
    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 12 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA                             RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Moore, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lieu, and 
Moulton to adjust revenue and Function 920 levels to reflect 
adoption of H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, 
and Immigration Modernization Act (113th Congress), which was 
the House companion to the Senate's Comprehensive Immigration 
Reform bill that was proposed in the last session of Congress.
    The amendment would increase aggregate levels of revenue by 
the following amounts: $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2016, $11.5 
billion for fiscal year 2017, $28.0 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $39.1 billion for fiscal year 2019, $45.0 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $47.7 billion for fiscal year 2021, $55.3 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $65.0 billion for fiscal year 
2023, $77.7 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $87.6 billion for 
fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
for Function 920 each by the following amounts: $4.6 billion 
for fiscal year 2016, $6.8 billion for fiscal year 2017, $14.0 
billion for fiscal year 2018, $19.8 billion for fiscal year 
2019, $24.6 billion for fiscal year 2020, $26.6 billion for 
fiscal year 2021, $32.2 billion for fiscal year 2022, $37.4 
billion for fiscal year 2023, $44.4 billion for fiscal year 
2024, and $51.4 billion for fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment also expresses the sense of the House on 
immigration reform.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA                             RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. An amendment offered by Representatives Ryan, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Moore, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Dingell, 
Norcross, and Moulton to increase mandatory budget authority 
and outlays in Function 370 relating to manufacturing programs 
in the United States.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
370 by $3.188 billion dollars in fiscal year 2016. Outlays for 
Function 370 would change by the following amounts: $0.000 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.258 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $0.558 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.655 billion for 
fiscal year 2019, $0.751 billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.386 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $0.290 billion for fiscal year 
2022, $0.193 billion for fiscal year 2023, $0.097 billion for 
fiscal year 2024, and $0.000 billion for fiscal year 2025.
    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 14 
ayes and 18 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA                             RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN                             POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER                              LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)                  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. An amendment offered by Representatives Lieu, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Moore, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, and Moulton 
expressing a sense of the House relating to funding for the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA                             RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham, 
Van Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Dingell, and Lieu expressing 
a sense of the House to assist seniors with prescription drug 
costs and other health benefits.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, Dingell, Lieu, and 
Norcross expressing a sense of the House on Social Security.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                                .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. An amendment offered by Representatives Castor, Van 
Hollen, Ryan, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, Dingell, 
Lieu, Norcross, and Moulton relating to transportation 
infrastructure.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
400 by the following amounts: $49.904 billion for fiscal year 
2016, $18.022 billion for fiscal year 2017, $17.996 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $12.809 billion for fiscal year 2019, $12.385 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $11.951 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $11.474 billion for fiscal year 2022, $10.962 billion for 
fiscal year 2023, $10.408 billion for fiscal year 2024, and 
$9.837 billion for fiscal year 2025.
    Outlays for Function 400 would increase by the following 
amounts: $12.783 billion for fiscal year 2016, $23.548 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $19.193 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$17.973 billion for fiscal year 2019, $18.784 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $18.762 billion for fiscal year 2021, $18.765 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $19.052 billion for fiscal year 
2023, $19.015 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $19.519 billion 
for fiscal year 2025.
    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. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van 
Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, and Dingell 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: $5.4 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $5.6 billion for fiscal year 2018, $5.6 
billion for fiscal year 2019, $5.6 billion for fiscal year 
2020, $5.6 billion for fiscal year 2021, $5.7 billion for 
fiscal year 2022, $5.8 billion for fiscal year 2023, $5.8 
billion for fiscal year 2024, and $5.9 billion for fiscal year 
2025.
    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. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van 
Hollen, Yarmuth, McDermott, Lee, Lujan Grisham, Dingell, Lieu, 
Norcross, and Moulton relating to student loans.
    The amendment establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund 
for student loan refinancing and a policy statement on lowering 
student debt through refinancing student loans.
    The amendment also increases mandatory budget authority and 
outlays for Function 500. Mandatory budget authority would 
increase by the following amounts: $8.326 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $12.54 billion for fiscal year 2017, $12.686 billion 
for fiscal year 2018, $12.992 billion for fiscal year 2019, 
$13.264 billion for fiscal year 2020, $13.252 billion for 
fiscal year 2021, $13.503 billion for fiscal year 2022, $13.753 
billion for fiscal year 2023, $14.034 billion for fiscal year 
2024, and $14.355 billion for fiscal year 2025.
    Outlays would increase by the following amounts: $7.105 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $9.787 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $12.162 billion for fiscal year 2018, $12.321 billion for 
fiscal year 2019, $12.58 billion for fiscal year 2020, $12.753 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $12.792 billion for fiscal year 
2022, $13.028 billion for fiscal year 2023, $13.268 billion for 
fiscal year 2024, and $13.538 billion for fiscal year 2025.
    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 14 
ayes and 20 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT                               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                     .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van 
Hollen, McDermott, Lee, and Moulton 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 14 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)                             .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van 
Hollen, Ryan, Moore, Castor, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, 
Dingell, and Lieu to increase spending for early childhood 
programs.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
in Function 500. Budget authority would increase by the 
following amounts: $1.300 billion for fiscal year 2016, $3.246 
billion for fiscal year 2017, $5.784 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $7.581 billion for fiscal year 2019, $8.956 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $9.880 billion for fiscal year 2021, $10.797 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $10.258 billion for fiscal year 
2023, $9.348 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $7.607 billion 
for fiscal year 2025.
    Outlays for Function 500 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.130 billion for fiscal year 2016, $1.235 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $3.110 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$5.456 billion for fiscal year 2019, $7.360 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $8.773 billion for fiscal year 2021, $9.787 billion 
for fiscal year 2022, $10.560 billion for fiscal year 2023, 
$10.275 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $9.356 billion for 
fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment also increases budget authority and outlays 
for Function 550. Budget authority would increase by the 
following amounts: $1.800 billion for fiscal year 2016, $4.600 
billion for fiscal year 2017, $5.500 billion for fiscal year 
2018, $5.700 billion for fiscal year 2019, $2.200 billion for 
fiscal year 2020, $1.600 billion for fiscal year 2021, $2.000 
billion for fiscal year 2022, $2.000 billion for fiscal year 
2023, $2.500 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $2.500 billion 
for fiscal year 2025.
    Outlays for Function 550 would increase by the following 
amounts: $1.307 billion for fiscal year 2016, $4.269 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $4.862 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$5.326 billion for fiscal year 2019, $1.519 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $1.183 billion for fiscal year 2021, $1.276 billion 
for fiscal year 2022, $1.540 billion for fiscal year 2023, 
$1.733 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $1.998 billion for 
fiscal year 2025.
    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. 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van 
Hollen, McDermott, Lee, and Pocan establishing a point of order 
against the budget as it relates to repealing the 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. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
McDermott, Lee, and Pocan requiring an Overseas Contingency 
Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) level that does 
not exceed the President's request for fiscal year 2016; 
justification for the OCO/GWOT designation in a detailed, 
account-level, submission to Congress; and limitations on the 
use of OCO/GWOT by not allowing OCO/GWOT funds to be used for 
regular, base budget activities.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Van 
Hollen, and Pocan to decrease funding for Overseas Contingency 
Operations.
    The amendment would decrease budget authority for Function 
970 by $36.003 billion for fiscal year 2016. Outlays for 
Function 970 would decrease by the following amounts: $15.675 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $11.227 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $4.567 billion for fiscal year 2018, $2.281 billion for 
fiscal year 2019, $0.814 billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.400 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $0.125 billion for fiscal year 
2022, $0.043 billion for fiscal year 2023, $0.029 billion for 
fiscal year 2024, and $0.025 billion for fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT                               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. An amendment offered by Representatives Dingell, Van 
Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, and Norcross 
creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund for long-term care 
services and supports for seniors and other Americans.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 22 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)             X    .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. An amendment offered by Representatives Norcross, Van 
Hollen, Ryan, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Dingell, and Moulton 
expressing a sense of the House on infrastructure investment.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)                  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. An amendment offered by Representatives Moulton, Van 
Hollen, Ryan, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Dingell, and Norcross 
relating to funding for career and technical education.
    The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority for 
Function 500 by $0.202 billion for each fiscal year for the 
period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
    Outlays for Function 500 would increase by the following 
amounts: $0.102 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.159 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $0.181 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$0.189 billion for fiscal year 2019, $0.198 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $0.198 billion for fiscal year 2021, $0.198 billion 
for fiscal year 2022, $0.198 billion for fiscal year 2023, 
$0.198 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $0.198 billion for 
fiscal year 2025.
    The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue 
by reducing tax expenditures for high-income individuals or 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 14 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                 X               VAN           X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                X               YARMUTH       X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT               X               PASCRELL      X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA             X               RYAN (OH)     X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)             X               MOORE         X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC             X               CASTOR        X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                 X               McDERMOTT     X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL               X               LEE (CA)      X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN             X               POCAN         X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER              X               LUJAN         X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)             X               DINGELL       X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN              X               LIEU (CA)     X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD               X               NORCROSS      X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK                X               MOULTON       X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)                  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)             X               .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY                X               .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN             X               .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER                X    .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR             X    .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN             X    .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN              X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. An amendment offered by Representative Blackburn 
creating a policy statement for the deficit-neutral Defense 
Readiness and Modernization Fund.
    The amendment was agreed to by a roll call vote of 22 ayes 
and 14 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE         X                       VAN                  X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA        X                       YARMUTH              X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT       X                       PASCRELL             X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA     X                       RYAN (OH)            X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)     X                       MOORE                X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC     X                       CASTOR               X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK         X                       McDERMOTT            X
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL       X                       LEE (CA)             X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN     X                       POCAN                X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER      X                       LUJAN                X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)     X                       DINGELL              X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN      X                       LIEU (CA)            X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD       X                       NORCROSS             X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK        X                       MOULTON              X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)     X            .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)     X                       .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY        X                       .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN     X                       .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER        X            .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR     X            .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN     X            .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN      X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. An amendment offered by Representative Rokita making 
technical changes to the Chairman's mark.
    The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
    30. Representative Rokita made a motion that the Committee 
adopt the aggregates, function totals, and other appropriate 
matter, with any amendments.
    The motion offered by Representative Rokita was agreed to 
by voice vote.
    Chairman Price called up the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for fiscal year 2016 incorporating the aggregates, 
function totals, and other appropriate matter as previously 
agreed.
    31. Representative Rokita 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 Representative Rokita was agreed to 
by a roll call vote of 22 ayes and 13 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE         X                       VAN                  X
 (GA)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chairma                              (MD)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA        X                       YARMUTH              X
 (IN)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT       X                       PASCRELL             X
 (NJ)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAZ-BALA     X                       RYAN (OH)            X
 RT (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)     X                       MOORE                X
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC     X                       CASTOR               X
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK         X                       McDERMOTT
 (TN)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL       X                       LEE (CA)             X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN     X                       POCAN                X
 (TN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER      X                       LUJAN                X
 (MO)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)     X                       DINGELL              X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMAN      X                       LIEU (CA)            X
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANFORD       X                       NORCROSS             X
 (SC)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOMACK        X                       MOULTON              X
 (AR)                                  (MA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAT (VA)     X            .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUM (IA)     X                       .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOONEY        X                       .........
 (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROTHMMAN     X                       .........
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALMER        X            .........
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOOLENAAR     X            .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERMAN     X            .........
 (AR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUCHANAN      X
 (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representative Rokita 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.
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                        OTHER MATTERS 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) of the Congressional 
Budget 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

                              ----------                              


    2016 Republican Budget Threatens Economic Growth, Widens Income 
                Inequality, and Dims the American Dream

    Hard-working Americans, striving to get ahead in this 
economy, are facing good news, bad news, and very bad news.
    The good news is that the economy is improving and more 
Americans are working. The private sector has now added 12 
million new jobs over the last 60 months. It is not all rosy--
many Americans are still looking for work, but the unemployment 
rate has fallen to 5.5 percent and trends are good.
    The bad news is that Americans are working harder than 
ever, but their paychecks are flat. This is not a new problem--
it has become a chronic problem that dates back to the 1970s. 
There has been a growing gap between the increased value 
workers are creating in the economy and the size of the 
paychecks they are taking home. Worker productivity is up; 
paychecks are flat lined.
    Where is the value of that hard work going? Income gains 
from increased productivity have gone overwhelmingly to those 
at the very top of the income scale, the top 1 percent. So it 
is no wonder that so many people across the country feel like 
they are running in place or falling behind.
    Right after the last election, there was some hope that 
Republican leaders understood the problem. Speaker Boehner and 
Republican Senate Leader McConnell wrote in the Wall Street 
Journal that they were humbled by the opportunity ``to help 
struggling middle-class Americans'' and deal with ``wage 
stagnation.''
    With the Republican budget, the country gets the very bad 
news--Republicans were just kidding.
    This Republican budget is very hard on hard-working 
Americans and those looking to find a job. It will do nothing 
to increase the paychecks and take-home pay for working 
families. In fact, it squeezes them even more. It will increase 
the tax burden on millions of families--those in the middle 
class and those working to join the middle class. Amazingly, it 
cuts higher education tax credits and ends the boost in the 
child tax credit. Millions of Americans will lose access to tax 
credits for affordable health care.
    The cuts in student loans and Pell grants will make college 
less affordable and add to the already huge levels of student 
debt. Seniors who have worked hard for a financially secure 
retirement will immediately have to pay higher Medicare 
premiums, bigger co-pays for preventive care, much higher costs 
for prescription drugs, and more for nursing home care.
    While this budget raises costs and further squeezes hard-
working families, students, and seniors, it paves the way for 
the Romney-Ryan plan to cut the tax rates for millionaires. It 
is based on the tired and disproven theory that we can grow our 
economy through trickledown economics. That theory ran aground 
in the real world under President Bush--the only things that 
went up were the incomes of the already wealthy and the 
deficit. Everyone else fell behind.
    While this Republican budget will immediately make life 
harder in the daily lives of working families, it also 
disinvests in America's future. It slashes the part of the 
budget we use to invest in our kids' education--from early 
education to K-12 and beyond. It is a sad day when we start 
chopping away at the ladders of opportunity in America.
    It will also devastate the investments America has made in 
scientific research and innovation--investments that have 
helped power our economy and keep us at the cutting edge of 
technology.
    Importantly, it provides no solution to address the 
shortfall in the federal transportation fund that will result 
in construction slowdowns beginning this summer.
    When we say the Republican budget disinvests America's 
future, it is not rhetoric--it is a mathematical reality. This 
budget slashes federal investments to a level that is almost 40 
percent below the lowest level as a share of the economy since 
we have been keeping records.
    Despite these devastating cuts, the Republic budget still 
does not balance--not by a long shot. It takes budget quackery 
to new heights. It claims to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 
but relies on its revenues and savings. It does not account for 
the costs of the almost $1 trillion in business tax cuts that 
Republicans have called for. It also plays a shameless shell 
game with our defense spending. It would make Enron accountants 
blush.
    Most Americans would agree that the policies in this 
Republican budget--cutting tax rates for the wealthy while 
increasing the tax burden on working Americans, raising costs 
for students and seniors, and cutting vital public 
investments--will simply stack the economic deck even more 
heavily in favor of the very wealthy and very powerful, and 
make it harder for everyone else to get ahead.
    We can do better. On the House floor Democrats will propose 
a budget that promotes a more rapidly growing economy with more 
broadly shared prosperity. That is the right direction for 
America.

                                          Chris Van Hollen.
                                              John Yarmuth.
                                             Bill Pascrell.
                                                  Tim Ryan.
                                                Gwen Moore.
                                              Kathy Castor.
                                             Jim McDermott.
                                               Barbara Lee.
                                                Mark Pocan.
                                    Michelle Lujan Grisham.
                                            Debbie Dingell.
                                                  Ted Lieu.
                                           Donald Norcross.
                                              Seth Moulton.
     LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            EXCHANGE OF LETTERS WITH THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

114th CONGRESS
    1st Session

                             H. CON. RES. 27

  Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
  year 2016 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
                        years 2017 through 2025.

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016.

    (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that this 
concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal year 2016 and 
sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 
2025.
    (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 2016.

                 TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Reconciliation procedures.
Sec. 203. Additional guidance for reconciliation.

  TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

Sec. 301. Submissions of findings for the elimination of waste, fraud, 
          and abuse.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate 
          macroeconomic effects.
Sec. 402. Limitation on measures affecting Social Security solvency.
Sec. 403. Budgetary treatment of administrative expenses.
Sec. 404. Limitation on transfers from the general fund of the Treasury 
          to the Highway Trust Fund.
Sec. 405. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 406. Fair value credit estimates.
Sec. 407. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 408. Allocation for overseas contingency operations/global war on 
          terrorism.
Sec. 409. Adjustments for improved control of budgetary resources.
Sec. 410. Concepts, aggregates, allocations and application.
Sec. 411. Rulemaking powers.

                         TITLE V--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 501. Reserve fund for the repeal of the President's health care 
          law.
Sec. 502. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for promoting real health care 
          reform.
Sec. 503. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare 
          provisions of the President's health care law.
Sec. 504. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the State Children's Health 
          Insurance Program.
Sec. 505. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for graduate medical education.
Sec. 506. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 507. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 508. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 509. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and increase 
          opportunity and upward mobility.
Sec. 510. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.
Sec. 511. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Federal retirement reform.
Sec. 512. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for defense sequester 
          replacement.
Sec. 513. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for overseas contingency 
          operations/global war on terrorism.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 601. Direct spending.

                 TITLE VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Sec. 701. Long-term budgeting.

                      TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

Sec. 801. Policy statement on balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 802. Policy statement on budget process and baseline reform.
Sec. 803. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 804. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 805. Policy statement on trade.
Sec. 806. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 807. Policy statement on repealing the President's health care law 
          and promoting real health care reform.
Sec. 808. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 809. Policy statement on medical discovery, development, delivery 
          and innovation.
Sec. 810. Policy statement on Federal regulatory reform.
Sec. 811. Policy statement on higher education and workforce development 
          opportunity.
Sec. 812. Policy statement on Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 813. Policy statement on Federal accounting methodologies.
Sec. 814. Policy statement on scorekeeping for outyear budgetary effects 
          in appropriation Acts.
Sec. 815. Policy statement on reducing unnecessary, wasteful, and 
          unauthorized spending.
Sec. 816. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the cancellation 
          of unobligated balances.
Sec. 817. Policy statement on agency fees and spending.
Sec. 818. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer 
          dollars.
Sec. 819. Policy statement on ``No Budget, No Pay''.
Sec. 820. Policy statement on national security funding.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

    The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of fiscal 
years 2016 through 2025:
            (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
        this concurrent resolution:
                    (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are 
                as follows:
    Fiscal year 2016: $2,666,755,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $2,763,328,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $2,858,131,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $2,974,147,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $3,099,410,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $3,241,963,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $3,388,688,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $3,550,388,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $3,722,144,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2025: $3,905,648,000,000.
                    (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of 
                Federal revenues should be changed are as follows:
    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.
    Fiscal year 2025: $0.
            (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
        of this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
        new budget authority are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2016: $2,934,975,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $2,873,969,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $2,944,013,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $3,091,040,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $3,248,109,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $3,327,968,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $3,462,962,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $3,529,073,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $3,586,467,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2025: $3,715,272,000,000.
            (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
        this concurrent resolution, the budgetary levels of total 
        budget outlays are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2016: $3,009,033,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $2,893,883,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $2,927,040,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $3,062,131,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $3,205,489,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $3,298,907,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $3,452,463,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $3,497,911,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $3,538,398,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2025: $3,685,320,000,000.
            (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 2016: -$342,278,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: -$130,555,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: -$68,909,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: -$87,984,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: -$106,079,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: -$56,944,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: -$63,775,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $52,477,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $183,746,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2025: $220,418,000,000.
            (5) Debt subject to limit.--The budgetary levels of the 
        public debt are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2016: $19,047,763,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $19,393,542,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $19,641,396,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $19,947,774,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $20,261,172,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $20,505,542,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $20,906,471,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $21,075,678,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $20,916,009,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2025: $20,904,522,000,000.
            (6) Debt held by the public.--The budgetary levels of debt 
        held by the public are as follows:
    Fiscal year 2016: $13,838,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2017: $14,040,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2018: $14,145,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2019: $14,338,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2020: $14,560,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2021: $14,742,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2022: $15,128,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2023: $15,300,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2024: $15,162,000,000,000.
    Fiscal year 2025: $15,235,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

    The Congress determines and declares that the budgetary levels of 
new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 2016 through 2025 for 
each major functional category are:
            (1) National Defense (050):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $531,334,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $564,027,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $582,506,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $572,025,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $607,744,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $586,422,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $620,019,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $604,238,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $632,310,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $617,553,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $644,627,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $630,610,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $657,634,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $648,269,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $670,997,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $656,389,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $683,771,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $663,936,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $698,836,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $683,350,000,000.
            (2) International Affairs (150):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $38,342,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $42,923,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $39,623,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,821,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $40,539,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,736,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $41,437,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,214,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $42,390,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,564,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $42,861,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,108,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $44,081,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,868,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $45,070,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $41,633,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $46,098,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $42,470,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $47,148,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $43,349,000,000.
            (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $28,381,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $29,003,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $28,932,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $28,924,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $29,579,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $29,357,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $30,227,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $29,798,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $30,904,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $30,388,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $31,584,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $30,957,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $32,293,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $31,637,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $33,003,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $32,338,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $33,742,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $33,059,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $34,488,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $33,795,000,000.
            (4) Energy (270):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority -$3,581,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $654,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,410,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $649,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,189,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $234,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,196,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $307,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,259,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $472,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,309,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $728,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,335,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $863,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,375,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $1,332,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $1,037,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$964,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$1,215,000,000.
            (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $35,350,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,113,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $36,047,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,268,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $36,385,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $37,674,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $37,206,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $37,747,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $38,171,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,304,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $38,367,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,685,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $39,221,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,361,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $40,108,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,319,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $40,962,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $40,486,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $39,095,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $38,471,000,000.
            (6) Agriculture (350):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $20,109,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $21,164,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $23,064,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,194,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $21,987,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $21,396,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $20,907,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $20,275,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $19,835,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,386,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $19,296,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $18,849,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $19,245,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $18,830,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $19,821,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,391,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $20,020,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,553,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $20,256,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,851,000,000.
            (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority -$3,269,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$16,617,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$12,373,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$26,620,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$10,252,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$24,998,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$8,801,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$28,587,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$6,903,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$27,479,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$6,522,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$21,769,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$5,742,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$22,819,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$4,965,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$23,306,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$3,991,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$23,635,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$3,370,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$23,845,000,000.
            (8) Transportation (400):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $36,743,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $79,181,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $69,381,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $69,500,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $70,298,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $73,623,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $76,397,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $76,051,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $77,763,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $76,767,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $79,149,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $78,369,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $80,613,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $79,946,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $82,128,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $81,336,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $83,709,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $82,724,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $85,335,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $83,983,000,000.
            (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $7,082,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $19,928,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $7,688,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $16,753,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,089,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $15,383,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,381,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $13,789,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,409,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $12,567,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,305,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $12,095,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,304,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $10,937,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,359,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,345,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,447,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $8,890,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $8,579,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $8,930,000,000.
            (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services 
        (500):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $80,620,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $90,389,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $84,746,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $90,513,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $87,029,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $87,366,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $85,514,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $85,290,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $87,901,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $87,669,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $88,908,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $89,276,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $90,148,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $90,467,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $91,237,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $91,646,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $92,744,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $93,101,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $94,400,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $94,734,000,000.
            (11) Health (550):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $416,475,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $426,860,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $360,678,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $364,823,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $358,594,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $360,468,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $367,103,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $367,916,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $387,076,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $377,341,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $388,981,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $389,025,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $398,136,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $398,233,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $408,454,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $408,529,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $425,381,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $425,477,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $433,945,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $434,143,000,000.
            (12) Medicare (570):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $577,726,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $577,635,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $580,837,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $580,777,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $580,782,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $580,741,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $639,293,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $639,213,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $680,575,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $680,481,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $726,644,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $726,548,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $808,204,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $808,100,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $825,577,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $825,379,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $834,148,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $834,037,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $927,410,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $927,292,000,000.
            (13) Income Security (600):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $512,364,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $513,709,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $479,836,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $475,234,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $481,994,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $471,951,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $483,293,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $477,470,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $516,193,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $510,603,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $502,001,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $496,856,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $518,690,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $518,542,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $525,230,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $519,391,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $532,515,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $521,105,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $550,057,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $543,361,000,000.
            (14) Social Security (650):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $33,878,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $33,919,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $36,535,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $36,535,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $39,407,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $39,407,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $42,634,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $42,634,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $46,104,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $46,104,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $49,712,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $49,712,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $53,547,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $53,547,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $57,455,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $57,455,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $61,546,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $61,546,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $65,751,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $65,751,000,000.
            (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $166,677,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $170,121,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $164,843,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $164,387,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $163,009,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $162,385,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $174,862,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $174,048,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $179,735,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $178,778,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $183,969,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $183,019,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $196,283,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $195,255,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $192,866,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $191,834,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $189,668,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $188,553,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $203,517,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $202,383,000,000.
            (16) Administration of Justice (750):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $52,156,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $56,006,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $55,450,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $57,547,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $55,169,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $56,659,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $56,854,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $56,572,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $58,585,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $58,392,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $60,498,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $59,992,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $63,032,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $62,485,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $64,917,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $64,355,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $66,844,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $66,264,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $68,632,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $68,051,000,000.
            (17) General Government (800):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $23,593,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,576,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,761,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,202,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $22,817,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,279,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $23,252,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,084,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $23,947,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $23,602,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,192,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,309,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $24,981,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,114,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $25,695,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,840,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $26,010,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,878,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $26,968,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $26,825,000,000.
            (18) Net Interest (900):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $366,527,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $366,527,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $414,768,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $414,768,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $477,731,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $477,731,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $531,032,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $531,032,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $578,654,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $578,654,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $612,121,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $612,121,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $642,388,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $642,388,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $667,089,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $667,089,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $684,301,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $684,301,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $695,929,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $695,929,000,000.
            (19) Allowances (920):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority -$33,462,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$17,275,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$29,863,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$24,277,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$32,175,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$28,249,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$34,261,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$31,078,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$39,009,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$35,136,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$42,221,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$38,438,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$46,013,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$42,205,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$49,123,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$45,430,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$50,652,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$47,736,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$48,913,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$48,058,000,000.
            (20) Government-wide savings (930):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $27,465,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $18,416,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$15,712,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$3,005,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$32,429,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$20,148,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$41,554,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$32,383,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$50,240,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$42,168,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$55,831,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$50,276,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$63,954,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$57,849,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$71,850,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$65,124,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$78,889,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$71,689,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, -
                        $113,903,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$93,929,000,000.
            (21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority -$73,514,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$73,514,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$83,832,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$83,832,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$90,115,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$90,115,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$90,594,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$90,594,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$92,193,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$92,193,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$96,623,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$96,623,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$99,437,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$99,437,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, -
                        $104,343,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$104,343,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, -
                        $111,213,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$111,213,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, -
                        $117,896,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$117,896,000,000.
            (22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
        Terrorism (970):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority $94,000,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $44,304,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $33,716,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $26,758,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $26,117,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $25,862,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, $26,666,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, $24,776,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, $0.
                            (B) Outlays, $9,956,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, $0.
                            (B) Outlays, $2,869,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, $0.
                            (B) Outlays, $278,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, $0.
                            (B) Outlays, $0.
            (23) Across-the-Board Adjustment (990):
                    Fiscal year 2016:
                            (A) New budget authority -$21,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$17,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2017:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$22,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$20,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2018:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$21,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2019:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$23,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$22,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2020:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2021:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$24,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$23,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2022:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$25,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$24,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2023:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2024:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$26,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$25,000,000.
                    Fiscal year 2025:
                            (A) New budget authority, -$27,000,000.
                            (B) Outlays, -$26,000,000.

                        TITLE II--RECONCILIATION

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    (a) Submission Providing for Deficit Reduction.--Not later than 
July 15, 2015, the committees named in subsection (b) shall submit 
their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives to carry out this section.
    (b) Instructions.--
            (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on Agriculture 
        shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient 
        to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of 
        fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (2) Committee on armed services.--The Committee on Armed 
        Services shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
        sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 for the period 
        of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (3) Committee on education and the workforce.--The 
        Committee on Education and the Workforce shall submit changes 
        in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
        deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 
        through 2025.
            (4) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee on 
        Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 
        for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (5) Committee on financial services.--The Committee on 
        Financial Services shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
        for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (6) Committee on homeland security.--The Committee on 
        Homeland Security shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $15,000,000 
        for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (7) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the 
        Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
        sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 for the period 
        of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (8) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on 
        Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
        for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (9) Committee on oversight and government reform.--The 
        Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall submit 
        changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
        the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2016 through 2025.
            (10) Committee on science, space, and technology.--The 
        Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall submit 
        changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
        the deficit by $15,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 
        through 2025.
            (11) Committee on transportation and infrastructure.--The 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shall submit 
        changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
        the deficit by $100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2016 
        through 2025.
            (12) Committee on veterans' affairs.--The Committee on 
        Veterans' Affairs shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by $100,000,000 
        for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
            (13) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on Ways 
        and Means shall submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
        sufficient to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the 
        period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES.

    (a) Estimating Assumptions.--
            (1) Assumptions.--In the House, for purposes of titles III 
        and IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chair of 
        the Committee on the Budget shall use the baseline underlying 
        the Congressional Budget Office's Budget and Economic Outlook: 
        2015 to 2025 (January 2015) when making estimates of any bill 
        or joint resolution, or any amendment thereto or conference 
        report thereon. If adjustments to the baseline are made 
        subsequent to the adoption of this concurrent resolution, then 
        such chair shall determine whether to use any of these 
        adjustments when making such estimates.
            (2) Intent.--The authority set forth in paragraph (1) 
        should only be exercised if the estimates used to determine the 
        compliance of such measures with the budgetary requirements 
        included in the concurrent resolution are inaccurate because 
        adjustments made to the baseline are inconsistent with the 
        assumptions underlying the budgetary levels set forth in this 
        concurrent resolution. Such inaccurate adjustments made after 
        the adoption of this concurrent resolution may include selected 
        adjustments for rulemaking, judicial actions, adjudication, and 
        interpretative rules that have major budgetary effects and are 
        inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the budgetary 
        levels set forth in this concurrent resolution.
            (3) Congressional budget office estimates.--Upon the 
        request of the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the 
        House for any measure, the Congressional Budget Office shall 
        prepare an estimate based on the baseline determination made by 
        such chair pursuant to paragraph (1).
    (b) Repeal of the President's Health Care Law Through 
Reconciliation.--In preparing their submissions under section 201(a) to 
the Committee on the Budget, the committees named in section 201(b) 
shall--
            (1) note the policies described in the report accompanying 
        this concurrent resolution on the budget that repeal the 
        Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of 
        the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; and
            (2) determine the most effective methods by which the 
        health care laws referred to in paragraph (1) shall be repealed 
        in their entirety.
    (c) Revision of Budgetary Levels.--
            (1) Submission.--Upon the submission to the Committee on 
        the Budget of the House of a recommendation that has complied 
        with its reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of 
        section 310(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
        chair of the Committee on the Budget may file with the House 
        appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of such 
        Act and revised functional levels and aggregates.
            (2) Conference report.--Upon the submission to the House of 
        a conference report recommending a reconciliation bill or 
        resolution in which a committee has complied with its 
        reconciliation instructions solely by virtue of this section, 
        the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House may file 
        with the House appropriately revised allocations under section 
        302(a) of such Act and revised functional levels and 
        aggregates.
            (3) Revision.--Allocations and aggregates revised pursuant 
        to this subsection shall be considered to be allocations and 
        aggregates established by the concurrent resolution on the 
        budget pursuant to section 301 of such Act.

SEC. 203. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR RECONCILIATION.

    (a) Guidance.--In the House, the chair of the Committee on the 
Budget may develop additional guidelines providing further information, 
budgetary levels and amounts, and other explanatory material to 
supplement the instructions included in this concurrent resolution 
pursuant to section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and set 
forth in section 201.
    (b) Publication.--In the House, the chair of the Committee on the 
Budget may cause the material prepared pursuant to subsection (a) to be 
printed in the Congressional Record on the appropriate date, but not 
later than the date set forth in this title on which committees must 
submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget in order to 
comply with the reconciliation instructions set forth in section 201.

 TITLE III--SUBMISSIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE

SEC. 301. SUBMISSIONS OF FINDINGS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, 
                    AND ABUSE.

    (a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste, Fraud, and 
Abuse.--In the House, not later than October 1, 2015, the committees 
named in subsection (d) shall submit to the Committee on the Budget 
findings that identify changes in law within their jurisdictions that 
would achieve the specified level of savings through the elimination of 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
    (b) Recommendations Submitted.--After receiving those 
recommendations --
            (1) the Committee on the Budget may use them in the 
        development of future concurrent resolutions on the budget; and
            (2) the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the House 
        shall make such recommendations publicly available in 
        electronic form and cause them to be placed in the 
        Congressional Record not later than 30 days after receipt.
    (c) Specified Levels of Savings.--For purposes of this section, a 
specified level of savings for each committee may be inserted in the 
Congressional Record by the chair of the Committee on the Budget.
    (d) House Committees.--The following committees shall submit 
findings to the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
pursuant to subsection (a): the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee 
on Armed Services, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security, 
the Committee on House Administration, the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee on 
Natural Resources, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the 
Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
    (e) Report by the Government Accountability Office.--By August 1, 
2015, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on the 
Budget of the House of Representatives a comprehensive report 
identifying instances in which the committees referred to in subsection 
(d) may make legislative changes to improve the economy, efficiency, 
and effectiveness of programs within their jurisdiction.

                      TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. COST ESTIMATES FOR MAJOR LEGISLATION TO INCORPORATE 
                    MACROECONOMIC EFFECTS.

    (a) CBO Estimates.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
concurrent resolution, upon its adoption until the end of fiscal year 
2016, an estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office under 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for any major 
legislation considered in the House or the Senate during fiscal year 
2016 shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the budgetary 
effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and 
other macroeconomic variables resulting from such legislation.
    (b) Joint Committee on Taxation Estimates.--For purposes of the 
enforcement of this concurrent resolution, any estimate provided by the 
Joint Committee on Taxation to the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 201(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for 
any major legislation shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate the 
budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital 
stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such 
legislation.
    (c) Contents.--Any estimate referred to in this section shall, to 
the extent practicable, include--
            (1) a qualitative assessment of the budgetary effects 
        (including macroeconomic variables described in subsections (a) 
        and (b)) of such legislation in the 20-fiscal year period 
        beginning after the last fiscal year of this concurrent 
        resolution sets forth budgetary levels required by section 301 
        of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
            (2) an identification of the critical assumptions and the 
        source of data underlying that estimate.
    (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
            (1) the term ``major legislation'' means any bill or joint 
        resolution--
                    (A) for which an estimate is required to be 
                prepared pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
                Budget Act of 1974 and that causes a gross budgetary 
                effect (before incorporating macroeconomic effects) in 
                any fiscal year over the years of the most recently 
                agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget equal to 
                or greater than 0.25 percent of the current projected 
                gross domestic product of the United States for that 
                fiscal year; or
                    (B) designated as such by the chair of the 
                Committee on the Budget for all direct spending 
                legislation other than revenue legislation or the 
                Member who is chair or vice chair, as applicable, of 
                the Joint Committee on Taxation for revenue 
                legislation; and
            (2) the term ``budgetary effects'' means changes in 
        revenues, budget authority, outlays, and deficits.

SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON MEASURES AFFECTING SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the enforcement of this concurrent 
resolution, upon its adoption until the end of fiscal year 2016, it 
shall not be in order to consider in the House or the Senate a bill or 
joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report thereon, 
that reduces the actuarial balance by at least .01 percent of the 
present value of future taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and 
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201(a) of the 
Social Security Act for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent 
annual report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 
201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a measure that 
would improve the actuarial balance of the combined balance in the 
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 75-year period utilized in the 
most recent annual report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to 
section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.

SEC. 403. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

    (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 enforcing 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 discretionary amounts described in subsection (a).

SEC. 404. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY 
                    TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

    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. 405. 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 identified in the report to 
accompany this concurrent resolution or the joint explanatory statement 
of managers to accompany this concurrent resolution under the heading:
            (1) General.--``Accounts Identified for Advance 
        Appropriations''; and
            (2) Veterans.--``Veterans Accounts Identified for Advance 
        Appropriations''.
    (c) Limitations.--The aggregate level of advance appropriations 
shall not exceed--
            (1) General.--$28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for 
        all programs identified pursuant to subsection (b)(1); and
            (2) Veterans.--$63,271,000,000 in new budget authority for 
        programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs identified 
        pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
    (d) Definition.--The term ``advance appropriation'' means any new 
discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint resolution, 
or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, making general 
appropriations or continuing appropriations, for the fiscal year 
following fiscal year 2016.

SEC. 406. FAIR VALUE CREDIT ESTIMATES.

    (a) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or ranking 
member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate of the budgetary 
effects of a measure prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office under the terms of title V of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, ``credit reform'' shall, as a supplement to such estimate, 
and 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.
    (b) Fair Value Estimates for Housing and Student Loan 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 budgetary effects 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 budgetary effect related to a housing, 
residential mortgage or student loan program under title V of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 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 
effect.
    (c) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), 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. 407. 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 in the fiscal year following the last fiscal year of this 
concurrent resolution.

SEC. 408. ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON 
                    TERRORISM.

    (a) Separate OCO/GWOT Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a 
separate allocation of new budget authority and outlays provided to the 
Committee on Appropriations for the purposes of Overseas Contingency 
Operations/Global War on Terrorism.
    (b) Application.--For purposes of enforcing the separate allocation 
referred to in subsection (a) 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 2016. Section 302(c) of 
such Act shall not apply to such separate allocation.
    (c) Designations.--New budget authority or outlays counting toward 
the allocation established by subsection (a) shall be designated 
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
    (d) Adjustments.--For purposes of subsection (a) for fiscal year 
2016, 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. 409. ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVED CONTROL OF BUDGETARY RESOURCES.

    (a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending Levels.--In 
the House, if a committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) 
reports a bill or joint resolution, or offers any amendment thereto or 
submits a 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 2016 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) Determinations.--In the House, for the purpose of enforcing 
this concurrent resolution, the allocations and aggregate levels of new 
budget authority, outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, 
revenues, deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2016 and the period 
of fiscal years 2016 through fiscal year 2025 shall be determined on 
the basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
and such chair may adjust applicable levels of this concurrent 
resolution.

SEC. 410. CONCEPTS, AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS AND APPLICATION.

    (a) Concepts, Allocations, and Application.--In the House--
            (1) upon a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the 
        chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust any 
        allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
        concurrent resolution accordingly;
            (2) any adjustments of the allocations, aggregates, and 
        other budgetary levels made pursuant to this concurrent 
        resolution shall--
                    (A) apply while that measure is under 
                consideration;
                    (B) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; 
                and
                    (C) be published in the Congressional Record as 
                soon as practicable;
            (3) section 202 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) shall 
        have no force or effect for any reconciliation bill reported 
        pursuant to instructions set forth in this concurrent 
        resolution;
            (4) the chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
        allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary levels 
        to reflect changes resulting from the most recently published 
        or adjusted baseline of the Congressional Budget Office; and
            (5) the term ``budget year'' means the most recent fiscal 
        year for which a concurrent resolution on the budget has been 
        adopted.
    (b) Aggregates, Allocations and Application.--In the House, for 
purposes of this concurrent resolution and budget enforcement--
            (1) the consideration of any bill or joint resolution, or 
        amendment thereto or conference report thereon, for which the 
        chair of the Committee on the Budget makes adjustments or 
        revisions in the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 
        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 407 of this 
        concurrent resolution; and
            (2) 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.

SEC. 411. 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 V--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 501. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE 
                    LAW.

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

SEC. 502. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROMOTING REAL HEALTH CARE 
                    REFORM.

    In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill or joint 
resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that 
promotes real health care reform, if such measure would not increase 
the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 503. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE MEDICARE 
                    PROVISIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW.

    In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary 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 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 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 504. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
                    INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure extends the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, but only if such measure would not 
increase the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 505. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION.

    In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure reforms, expands 
access to, and improves, as determined by such chair, graduate medical 
education programs, but only if such measure would not increase the 
deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 506. 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 budgetary 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 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 507. 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 budgetary 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 2016 through 
2025.

SEC. 508. 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 budgetary 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 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 509. 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 budgetary levels in this 
concurrent 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 2016 
through 2025.

SEC. 510. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

    In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
concurrent 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 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 511. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FEDERAL RETIREMENT REFORM.

    In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
the allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this 
concurrent resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 
thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure reforms, improves 
and updates the Federal retirement system, as determined by such chair, 
but only if such measure would not increase the deficit over the period 
of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 512. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFENSE SEQUESTER 
                    REPLACEMENT.

    The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this concurrent 
resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, if such measure supports the following 
activities: Department of Defense training and maintenance associated 
with combat readiness, modernization of equipment, auditability of 
financial statements, or military compensation and benefit reforms, by 
the amount provided for these purposes, but only if such measure would 
not increase the deficit (without counting any net revenue increases in 
that measure) over the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

SEC. 513. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 
                    OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.

    The chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise the 
allocations, aggregates, and other budgetary levels in this concurrent 
resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, if such measure is related to the support of 
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism by the amounts 
provided in such legislation in excess of $73.5 billion but not to 
exceed $94 billion, but only if such measure would not increase the 
deficit (without counting any net revenue increases in that measure) 
over the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

                 TITLE VI--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 601. 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 2016 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 2016 is 4.6 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 flexible State allotments, which States will be 
                able to tailor to meet their unique needs. Such a 
                reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all 
                approach that ties the hands of State governments and 
                would provide States with the freedom and flexibility 
                they have long requested in the Medicaid program. 
                Moreover, this budget assumes the repeal of the 
                Medicaid expansions in the President's health care law, 
                relieving State governments of the crippling one-size-
                fits-all enrollment mandates, as well as the 
                overwhelming pressure the law's Medicaid expansion puts 
                on an already-strained system.
                    (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.
    (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 2016 is 5.4 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 2016 is 5.5 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. Future retirees would be 
                able to choose from a range of guaranteed coverage 
                options, with 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. As with previous budgets, this program will 
                begin in 2024 and makes no changes to those in or near 
                retirement.
                    (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 VII--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

SEC. 701. 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) Revenues.--The budgetary levels of Federal revenues are 
        as follows:
    Fiscal year 2030: 18.7 percent.
    Fiscal year 2035: 19.0 percent.
    Fiscal year 2040: 19.0 percent.
            (2) Outlays.--The budgetary levels of total budget outlays 
        are not to exceed:
    Fiscal year 2030: 18.4 percent.
    Fiscal year 2035: 17.8 percent.
    Fiscal year 2040: 16.9 percent.
            (3) Deficits.--The budgetary levels of deficits are not to 
        exceed:
    Fiscal year 2030: -0.3 percent.
    Fiscal year 2035: -1.2 percent.
    Fiscal year 2040: -2.1 percent.
            (4) Debt.--The budgetary levels of debt held by the public 
        are not to exceed:
    Fiscal year 2030: 44.0 percent.
    Fiscal year 2035: 32.0 percent.
    Fiscal year 2040: 18.0 percent.

                     TITLE VIII--POLICY STATEMENTS

SEC. 801. POLICY STATEMENT ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) The Federal Government collects approximately $3 
        trillion annually in taxes, but spends more than $3.5 trillion 
        to maintain the operations of government. The Federal 
        Government must borrow 14 cents of every Federal dollar spent.
            (2) At the end of the year 2014, the national debt of the 
        United States was more than $18.1 trillion.
            (3) A majority of States have petitioned the Federal 
        Government to hold a Constitutional Convention for the 
        consideration of adopting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 
        United States Constitution.
            (4) Forty-nine States have fiscal limitations in their 
        State Constitutions, including the requirement to annually 
        balance the budget.
            (5) H.J. Res. 2, sponsored by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-
        VA), was considered by the House of Representatives on November 
        18, 2011, though it received 262 aye votes, it did not receive 
        the two-thirds required for passage.
            (6) Numerous balanced budget amendment proposals have been 
        introduced on a bipartisan basis in the House. Twelve were 
        introduced in the 113th Congress alone, including H.J. Res. 4 
        by Democratic Representative John J. Barrow of Georgia, and 
        H.J. Res. 38 by Republican Representative Jackie Walorski of 
        Indiana.
            (7) The joint resolution providing for a balanced budget 
        amendment to the U.S. Constitution referred to in paragraph (5) 
        prohibited outlays for a fiscal year (except those for 
        repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts for 
        that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) unless 
        Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber, 
        authorizes a specific excess of outlays over receipts.
            (8) In 1995, a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. 
        Constitution passed the House with bipartisan support, but 
        failed of passage by one vote in the United States Senate.
    (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this resolution that 
Congress should pass a joint resolution incorporating the provisions 
set forth in subsection (b), and send such joint resolution to the 
States for their approval, to amend the Constitution of the United 
States to require an annual balanced budget.

SEC. 802. POLICY STATEMENT ON BUDGET PROCESS AND BASELINE REFORM.

    (a) Findings.--
            (1) In 1974, after more than 50 years of executive 
        dominance over fiscal policy, Congress acted to reassert its 
        ``power of the purse'', and passed the Congressional Budget and 
        Impoundment Control Act.
            (2) The measure explicitly sought to establish 
        congressional control over the budget process, to provide for 
        annual congressional determination of the appropriate level of 
        taxes and spending, to set important national budget 
        priorities, and to find ways in which Members of Congress could 
        have access to the most accurate, objective, and highest 
        quality information to assist them in discharging their duties.
            (3) Far from achieving its intended purpose, however, the 
        process has instituted a bias toward higher spending and larger 
        government. The behemoth of the Federal Government has largely 
        been financed through either borrowing or taking ever greater 
        amounts of the national income through high taxation.
            (4) The process does not treat programs and policies 
        consistently and shows a bias toward higher spending and higher 
        taxes.
            (5) It assumes extension of spending programs (of more than 
        $50 million per year) scheduled to expire.
            (6) Yet it does not assume the extension of tax policies in 
        the same way. consequently, extending existing tax policies 
        that may be scheduled to expire is characterized as a new tax 
        reduction, requiring offsets to ``pay for'' merely keeping tax 
        policy the same even though estimating conventions would not 
        require similar treatment of spending programs.
            (7) The original goals set for the congressional process 
        are admirable in their intent, but because the essential 
        mechanisms of the process have remained the same, and 
        ``reforms'' enacted over the past 40 years have largely taken 
        the form of layering greater levels of legal complexity without 
        reforming or reassessing the very fundamental nature of the 
        process.
    (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
resolution on the budget that as the primary branch of Government, 
Congress must:
            (1) Restructure the fundamental procedures of budget 
        decision making;
            (2) Reassert Congress's ``power of the purse'', and 
        reinforce the balance of powers between Congress and the 
        President, as the 1974 Act intended.
            (3) Create greater incentives for lawmakers to do budgeting 
        as intended by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, especially 
        adopting a budget resolution every year.
            (4) Encourage more effective control over spending, 
        especially currently uncontrolled direct spending.
            (5) Consider innovative fiscal tools such as: zero based 
        budgeting, which would require a department or agency to 
        justify its budget as if it were a new expenditure; and direct 
        spending caps to enhance oversight of automatic pilot spending 
        that increases each year without congressional approval.
            (6) Promote efficient and timely budget actions, so that 
        lawmakers complete their budget actions by the time the new 
        fiscal year begins.
            (7) Provide access to the best analysis of economic 
        conditions available and increase awareness of how fiscal 
        policy directly impacts overall economic growth and job 
        creation,
            (9) Remove layers of complexity that have complicated the 
        procedures designed in 1974, and made budgeting more arcane and 
        opaque.
            (10) Remove existing biases that favor higher spending.
            (11) Include procedures by which current tax laws may be 
        extended and treated on a basis that is not different from the 
        extension of entitlement programs.
    (c) Budget Process Reform.--Comprehensive budget process reform 
should also remove the bias in the baseline against the extension of 
current tax laws in the following ways:
            (1) Permanent extension of tax laws should not be used as a 
        means to increase taxes on other taxpayers;
            (2) For those expiring tax provisions that are proposed to 
        be permanently extended, Congress should use a more realistic 
        baseline that does not require them to be offset; and,
            (3) Tax-reform legislation should not include tax increases 
        just to offset the extension of current tax laws.
    (d) Legislation.--The Committee on the Budget intends to draft 
legislation during the 114th Congress that will rewrite the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to fulfill the 
goals of making the congressional budget process more effective in 
ensuring taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and efficiently.

SEC. 803. 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 more than 5 years ago, the subsequent recovery 
        has felt more like a malaise than a rebound. Real gross 
        domestic product GDP growth over the past 5 years has averaged 
        slightly more than 2 percent, well below the 3.2 percent 
        historical trend rate of growth in the United States. Although 
        the economy has shown some welcome signs of improvement of 
        late, the Nation remains in the midst of the weakest economic 
        recovery of the modern era.
            (2) Looking ahead, CBO expects the economy to grow by an 
        average of just 2.3 percent over the next 10 years. That level 
        of economic growth is simply unacceptable and insufficient to 
        expand opportunities and the incomes of millions of middle-
        income Americans.
            (3) Sluggish economic growth has also contributed to the 
        country's fiscal woes. Subpar growth means that revenue levels 
        are lower than they would otherwise be while government 
        spending (e.g. welfare and income-support programs) is higher. 
        Clearly, there is a dire need for policies that will spark 
        higher rates of economic growth and greater, higher-quality job 
        opportunities
            (4) Although job gains have been trending up of late, other 
        aspects of the labor market remain weak. The labor force 
        participation rate, for instance, is hovering just under 63 
        percent, close to the lowest level since 1978. Long-term 
        unemployment also remains a problem. Of the roughly 8.7 million 
        people who are currently unemployed, 2.7 million (more than 30 
        percent) have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Long-term 
        unemployment erodes an individual's job skills and detaches 
        them from job opportunities. It also undermines the long-term 
        productive capacity of the economy.
            (5) Perhaps most important, wage gains and income growth 
        have been subpar for middle-class Americans. Average hourly 
        earnings of private-sector workers have increased by just 1.6 
        percent over the past year. Prior to the recession, average 
        hourly earnings were tracking close to 4 percent. Likewise, 
        average income levels have remained flat in recent years. Real 
        median household income is just under $52,000, one of the 
        lowest levels since 1995.
            (6) The unsustainable fiscal trajectory has cast a shadow 
        on the country's economic outlook. investors and businesses 
        make decisions on a forward-looking basis. they know that 
        today's large debt levels are simply tomorrow's tax hikes, 
        interest rate increases, or inflation and they act accordingly. 
        This debt overhang, and the uncertainty it generates, can weigh 
        on growth, investment, and job creation.
            (7) Nearly all economists, including those at the CBO, 
        conclude that reducing budget deficits (thereby bending the 
        curve on debt levels is a net positive for economic growth over 
        time. The logic is 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.
            (8) CBO analyzed the House Republican fiscal year 2016 
        budget resolution and found it would increase real output per 
        capita (a proxy for a country's standard of living) by about 
        $1,000 in 2025 and roughly $5,000 by 2040 relative to the 
        baseline path. That means more income and greater prosperity 
        for all Americans.
            (9) In contrast, if the Government remains on the current 
        fiscal path, future generations will face ever-higher debt 
        service costs, a decline in national savings, and a ``crowding 
        out'' of private investment. This dynamic will eventually lead 
        to a decline in economic output and a diminution in our 
        country's standard of living.
            (10) The key economic challenge is determining how to 
        expand the economic pie, not how best to divide up and re-
        distribute a shrinking pie.
            (11) 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 $326 billion.
            (12) This budget resolution therefore embraces pro-growth 
        policies, such as fundamental tax reform, that will help foster 
        a stronger economy, greater opportunities and more job 
        creation.
    (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 will 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 helping the economy grow and expanding 
opportunity for all Americans.

SEC. 804. 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 4,107 
        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 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 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 can 
        reach nearly 45 percent. For these reasons, sound economic 
        policy requires lowering marginal rates on these pass-through 
        entities.
            (8) The U.S. corporate income tax rate (including Federal, 
        State, and local taxes) sums to slightly more than 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 U.S. corporate 
        tax restrains economic growth and job creation. The U.S. tax 
        rate differential with other countries also fosters a variety 
        of complicated multinational corporate behaviors intended to 
        avoid the tax, which have the effect of moving the tax base 
        offshore, destroying American jobs, and decreasing corporate 
        revenue.
            (10) The ``worldwide'' structure of U.S. international 
        taxation essentially taxes earnings of 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 17.4 percent of the 
        economy throughout modern American history. Revenues rise above 
        this level under current law to 18.3 percent of the economy by 
        the end of the 10-year budget window.
            (14) Attempting to raise revenue through new tax increases 
        to meet out-of-control spending would sink the economy and 
        Americans' ability to save for their retirement and their 
        children's education.
            (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. Washington 
        has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
            (18) Many economists believe that fundamental tax reform 
        (i.e. a broader tax base and lower tax rates) would lead to 
        greater labor supply and increased investment, which, over 
        time, would have a positive impact on total national output.
            (19) Heretofore, the congressional scorekeepers the 
        Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on 
        Taxation (JCT).
            (20) Static scoring implicitly assumes that the size of the 
        economy (and therefore key economic variables such as labor 
        supply and investment) remains fixed throughout the considered 
        budget horizon. This is an abstraction from reality.
            (21) A new House rule was adopted at the beginning of the 
        114th Congress to help correct this problem. This rule requires 
        CBO and JCT to incorporate the macroeconomic effects of major 
        legislation into their official cost estimates.
            (22) This rule seeks to bridge the divide between static 
        estimates and scoring that incorporates economic feedback 
        effects by providing policymakers with a greater amount of 
        information about the likely economic impact of policies under 
        their consideration while at the same time preserving 
        traditional scoring methods and reporting conventions.
    (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 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 and 
        consolidates the current seven individual income tax brackets 
        into fewer brackets;
            (3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
            (4) reduces the corporate tax rate; and
            (5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive system 
        of international taxation in a manner that does not 
        discriminate against any particular type of income or industry.

SEC. 805. 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) The United States can increase economic opportunities 
        for American workers and businesses through the expansion of 
        trade, adherence to trade agreement rules by the United States 
        and its trading partners, and the elimination of foreign trade 
        barriers to United States goods and services.
            (3) Trade Promotion Authority is a bipartisan and bicameral 
        effort to strengthen the role of Congress in setting 
        negotiating objectives for trade agreements, to improve 
        consultation with Congress by the Administration, and to 
        provide a clear framework for congressional consideration and 
        implementation of trade agreements.
            (4) 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.
            (5) Trade agreements have saved the average American family 
        of four more than $10,000 per year, as a result of lower 
        duties. Trade agreements also lower the cost of manufacturing 
        inputs by removing duties.
            (6) American businesses and workers have shown that, on a 
        level playing field, they can excel and surpass the 
        international competition.
            (7) When negotiating trade agreements, United States laws 
        on Intellectual Property (IP) protection should be used as a 
        benchmark for establishing global IP frameworks. Strong IP 
        protections have contributed significantly to the United States 
        status as a world leader in innovation across sectors, 
        including in the development of life-saving biologic medicines. 
        The data protections afforded to biologics in United States 
        law, including 12 years of data protection, allow continued 
        development of pioneering medicines to benefit patients both in 
        the United States and abroad. To maintain the cycle of 
        innovation and achieve truly 21st century trade agreements, it 
        is vital that our negotiators insist on the highest standards 
        for IP protections.
            (8) The status quo of the current tax code also undermines 
        the competitiveness of United States businesses and costs the 
        United States economy investment and jobs.
            (9) 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. 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.
            (10) 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.
            (11) 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).
    (b) Policy on Trade.--It is the policy of this concurrent 
resolution to pursue international trade, global commerce, and a modern 
and competitive United States international tax system to promote job 
creation in the United States. The United States should continue to 
seek increased economic opportunities for American workers and 
businesses through the expansion of trade opportunities, adherence to 
trade agreements and rules by the United States and its trading 
partners, and the elimination of foreign trade barriers to United 
States goods and services by opening new markets and by enforcing 
United States rights. To that end, Congress should pass Trade Promotion 
Authority to strengthen the role of Congress in setting negotiating 
objectives for trade agreements, to improve consultation with Congress 
by the Administration, and to provide a clear framework for 
congressional consideration and implementation of trade agreements.

SEC. 806. 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 23 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 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections 
        find that Social Security will run cash deficits of more than 
        $2 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 CBO, between 1970 and 2012, the 
        number of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled 
        workers and their dependent family members) has increased by 
        more than 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 20 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 more 
        than 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 should, 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 1 December of the same calendar year in 
        which the Board of Trustees submit their recommendations, the 
        President should 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 should 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 should report a bill, which should be considered 
        by the full House or Senate under expedited procedures.
            (4) Legislation submitted by the President should--
                    (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. 
This resolution assumes reform that--
            (1) ensure benefits continue to be paid to individuals with 
        disabilities and their family members who rely on them;
            (2) prevents a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut;
            (3) makes the Disability Insurance program work better; and
            (4) promotes opportunity for those trying to return to 
        work.
    (d) Policy on Social Security Solvency.--Any legislation that 
Congress considers to improve the solvency of the Disability Insurance 
trust fund also must improve the long-term solvency of the combined Old 
Age and Survivors Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund.

SEC. 807. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPEALING THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW 
                    AND PROMOTING REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) The President's health care law put Washington's 
        priorities first, and not patients'. The Affordable Care Act 
        (ACA) has failed to reduce health care premiums as promised; 
        instead, the law mandated benefits and coverage levels, denying 
        patients the opportunity to choose the type of coverage that 
        best suits their health needs and driving up health coverage 
        costs. A typical family's health care premiums were supposed to 
        decline by $2,500 a year; instead, according to the 2014 
        Employer Health Benefits Survey, health care premiums have 
        increased by 7 percent for individuals and families since 2012.
            (2) The President pledged ``If you like your health care 
        plan, you can keep your health care plan.'' Instead, the 
        nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now estimates 9 million 
        Americans with employment-based health coverage will lose those 
        plans due to the President's health care law, further limiting 
        patient choice.
            (3) Then-Speaker of the House, 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 
        reduction in hours worked due to Obamacare represents a decline 
        of about 2.0 to 2.5 million full-time equivalent workers, 
        compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the 
        law. The full impact on labor represents a reduction in 
        employment by 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent, while additional 
        studies show less modest results. A recent study by the 
        Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimates that 
        Obamacare will reduce employment by up to 3 percent, or about 4 
        million full-time equivalent workers.
            (4) The President has charged the Independent Payment 
        Advisory Board, a panel of unelected bureaucrats, with cutting 
        Medicare by an additional $20.9 billion over the next ten 
        years, according to the President's most recent budget.
            (5) Since ACA was signed into law, the administration has 
        repeatedly failed to implement it as written. The President has 
        unilaterally acted to make a total of 28 changes, delays, and 
        exemptions. The President has signed into law another 17 
        changes made by Congress. The Supreme Court struck down the 
        forced expansion of Medicaid; ruled the individual ``mandate'' 
        could only be characterized as a tax to remain constitutional; 
        and rejected the requirement that closely held companies 
        provide health insurance to their employees if doing so 
        violates these companies' religious beliefs. Even now, almost 
        five years after enactment, the Supreme Court continues to 
        evaluate the legality of how the President's administration has 
        implemented the law. All of these changes prove the folly 
        underlying the entire program health care in the United States 
        cannot be run from a centralized bureaucracy.
            (6) The President's health care law is unaffordable, 
        intrusive, overreaching, destructive, and unworkable. The law 
        should be fully repealed, allowing for real, patient-centered 
        health care reform: the development of real health care reforms 
        that puts patients first, that make affordable, quality health 
        care available to all Americans, and that build on the 
        innovation and creativity of all the participants in the health 
        care sector.
    (b) Policy on Promoting Real Health Care Reform.--It is the policy 
of this resolution that the President's health care law should be fully 
repealed and real health care reform promoted in accordance with the 
following principles:
            (1) In general.--Health care reform should enhance 
        affordability, accessibility, quality, innovation, choices and 
        responsiveness in health care coverage for all Americans, 
        putting patients, families, and doctors in charge, not 
        Washington, DC. These reforms should encourage increased 
        competition and transparency. Under the President's health care 
        law, government controls Americans' health care choices. Under 
        true, patient-centered reform, Americans would.
            (2) Affordability.--Real reform should be centered on 
        ensuring that all Americans, no matter their age, income, or 
        health status, have the ability to afford health care coverage. 
        The health care delivery structure should be improved, and 
        individuals should not be priced out of the health insurance 
        market due to pre-existing conditions, but nationalized health 
        care is not only unnecessary to accomplish this, it undermines 
        the goal. Individuals should be allowed to join together 
        voluntarily to pool risk through mechanisms such as Individual 
        Membership Associations and Small Employer Membership 
        Associations.
            (3) Accessability.--Instead of Washington outlining for 
        Americans the ways they cannot use their health insurance, 
        reforms should make health coverage more portable. Individuals 
        should be able to own their insurance and have it follow them 
        in and out of jobs throughout their career. Small business 
        owners should be permitted to band together across State lines 
        through their membership in bona fide trade or professional 
        associations to purchase health coverage for their families and 
        employees at a low cost. This will increase small businesses' 
        bargaining power, volume discounts, and administrative 
        efficiencies while giving them freedom from State-mandated 
        benefit packages. Also, insurers licensed to sell policies in 
        one State should be permitted to offer them to residents in any 
        other State, and consumers should be permitted to shop for 
        health insurance across State lines, as they are with other 
        insurance products online, by mail, by phone, or in 
        consultation with an insurance agent.
            (4) Quality.--Incentives for providers to deliver high-
        quality, responsive, and coordinated care will promote patient 
        outcomes and drive down health care costs. likewise, reforms 
        that work to restore the patient-physician relationship by 
        reducing administrative burdens and allowing physicians to do 
        what they do best: care for patients
            (5) Choices.--Individuals and families should be free to 
        secure the health care coverage that best meets their needs, 
        rather than 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.
            (6) Innovation.--Instead of stifling innovation in health 
        care technologies, treatments, medications, and therapies with 
        Federal mandates, taxes, and price controls, a reformed health 
        care system should encourage research, development and 
        innovation.
            (7) Responsiveness.--Reform should return authority to 
        States wherever possible to make the system more responsive to 
        patients and their needs. Instead of tying States' hands with 
        Federal requirements for their Medicaid programs, the Federal 
        Government should return control of this program to the States. 
        Not only does the current Medicaid program drive up Federal 
        debt and threaten to bankrupt State budgets, but States are 
        better positioned to provide quality, affordable care to those 
        who are eligible for the program and to track down and weed out 
        waste, fraud and abuse. Beneficiary choices in the State 
        Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid should 
        be improved. States should make available the purchase of 
        private insurance as an option to their Medicaid and SCHIP 
        populations (though they should not require enrollment).
            (8) Reforms.--Reforms should be made to prevent lawsuit 
        abuse and curb the practice of defensive medicine, which are 
        significant drivers increasing health care costs. The burden of 
        proof in medical malpractice cases should be based on 
        compliance with best practice guidelines, and States should be 
        free to implement those policies to best suit their needs.

SEC. 808. 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 
        Medicare Trustees Report--
                    (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be 
                exhausted in 2030 and unable to pay scheduled benefits;
                    (B) Medicare enrollment is expected to increase by 
                over 50 percent in the next two decades, as 10,000 baby 
                boomers reach retirement age each day;
                    (C) enrollees remain in Medicare three times longer 
                than at the outset of the program;
                    (D) current workers' payroll contributions pay for 
                current beneficiaries;
                    (E) in 2013, the ratio was 3.2 workers per 
                beneficiary, but this falls to 2.3 in 2030 and 
                continues to decrease over time;
                    (F) most Medicare beneficiaries receive about three 
                dollars in Medicare benefits for every one dollar paid 
                into the program; and
                    (G) Medicare spending is growing faster than the 
                economy and Medicare outlays are currently rising at a 
                rate of 6.5 percent per year over the next 10 years. 
                According to the Congressional Budget Office's 2014 
                Long-Term Budget Outlook, spending on Medicare is 
                projected to reach 5 percent of gross domestic product 
                (GDP) by 2043 and 9.3 percent of GDP by 2089.
            (3) 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 preserve the program for those in or near retirement and strengthen 
Medicare for future beneficiaries.
    (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) permanent reform of the sustainable growth rate is 
        responsibly accounted for to ensure physicians continue to 
        participate in the Medicare program and provide quality health 
        care for beneficiaries;
            (3) when future generations 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;
            (4) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-service as a 
        plan option;
            (5) Medicare will provide additional assistance for lower 
        income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks; and
            (6) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path and the 
        Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-term.

SEC. 809. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICAL DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, DELIVERY 
                    AND INNOVATION.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) For decades, the Nation's commitment to the discovery, 
        development, and delivery of new treatments and cures has made 
        the United States the biomedical innovation capital of the 
        world, bringing life-saving drugs and devices to patients and 
        well over a million high-paying jobs to local communities.
            (2) Thanks to the visionary and determined leadership of 
        innovators throughout America, including industry, academic 
        medical centers, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
        the United States has led the way in early discovery. The 
        United States leadership role is being threatened, however, as 
        other countries contribute more to basic research from both 
        public and private sources.
            (3) The Organisation for Economic Development and 
        Cooperation predicts that China, for example, will outspend the 
        United States in total research and development by the end of 
        the decade.
            (4) Federal policies should foster innovation in health 
        care, not stifle it. America should maintain its world 
        leadership in medical science by encouraging competitive forces 
        to work through the marketplace in delivering cures and 
        therapies to patients.
            (5) Too often the bureaucracy and red-tape in Washington 
        hold back medical innovation and prevent new lifesaving 
        treatments from reaching patients. This resolution recognizes 
        the valuable role of the NIH and the indispensable 
        contributions to medical research coming from outside 
        Washington.
            (6) America is the greatest, most innovative Nation on 
        Earth. Her people are innovators, entrepreneurs, visionaries, 
        and relentless builders of the future. Americans were 
        responsible for the first telephone, the first airplane, the 
        first computer, for putting the first man on the moon, for 
        creating the first vaccine for polio and for legions of other 
        scientific and medical breakthroughs that have improved and 
        prolonged human health and life for countless people in America 
        and around the world.
    (b) Policy on Medical Innovation.--
            (1) It is the policy of this resolution to support the 
        important work of medical innovators throughout the country, 
        including private-sector innovators, medical centers and the 
        National Institutes of Health.
            (2) At the same time, the budget calls for continued strong 
        funding for the agencies that engage in valuable research and 
        development, while also urging Washington to get out of the way 
        of researchers, discoverers and innovators all over the 
        country.

SEC. 810. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY REFORM.

    (a) Findings.-- The House finds the following:
            (1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has hurt job 
        creation and dampened the economy, slowing the Nation's 
        recovery from the economic recession.
            (2) Since President Obama's inauguration in 2009, the 
        administration has issued more than 468,500 pages of 
        regulations in the Federal Register including 70,066 pages in 
        2014.
            (3) The National Association of Manufacturers estimates the 
        total cost of regulations is as high as $2.03 trillion per 
        year. Since 2009, the White House has generated more than $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) has resulted in more than $32 billion in 
        compliance costs and saddled job creators with more than 63 
        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 June 2014, the 
        EPA proposed a rule to cut carbon pollution from the Nation's 
        power plants. The proposed standards are unachievable with 
        current commercially available technology, resulting in a de-
        facto ban on new coal-fired power plants.
            (7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly 40 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 the energy market analysis group 
        Energy Ventures Analysis Inc. estimates the average energy bill 
        in West Virginia will rise $750 per household by 2020, due in 
        part to EPA regulations. West Virginia receives 95 percent of 
        its electricity from coal.
            (10) The Heritage Foundation 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 $1,200 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 Regulatory Reform.--It is the policy of this 
resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the public 
burdened by excessive regulation, enact legislation that--
            (1) promotes economic growth and job creation by 
        eliminating unnecessary red tape and streamlining and 
        simplifying Federal regulations;
            (2) requires the implementation of a regulatory budget to 
        be allocated amongst Government agencies, which would require 
        congressional approval and limit the maximum costs of 
        regulations in a given year;
            (3) requires congressional approval of all new major 
        regulations (those with an impact of $100 million or more) 
        before enactment as opposed to current law in which Congress 
        must expressly disapprove of regulation to prevent it from 
        becoming law, which would keep Congress engaged as to pending 
        regulatory policy and prevent costly and unsound policies from 
        being implemented and becoming effective;
            (4) requires a three year retrospective cost-benefit 
        analysis of all new major regulations, to ensure that 
        regulations operate as intended;
            (5) reinforces the requirement of regulatory impact 
        analysis for regulations proposed by executive branch agencies 
        but also expands the requirement to independent agencies so 
        that by law they consider the costs and benefits of proposed 
        regulations rather than merely being encouraged to do so as is 
        current practice; and
            (6) requires a formal rulemaking process for all major 
        regulations, which would increase transparency over the process 
        and allow interested parties to communicate their views on 
        proposed legislation to agency officials.

SEC. 811. 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) Roughly 20 million students are enrolled in American 
        colleges and universities.
            (3) Over the past decade, tuition and fees have been 
        growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2004-2005 
        Academic Year and the 2014-2015 Academic Year--
                    (A) published tuition and fees at public 4-year 
                colleges and universities increased at an average rate 
                of 3.5 percent per year above the rate of inflation;
                    (B) published tuition and fees at public two-year 
                colleges and universities increased at an average rate 
                of 2.5 percent per year above the rate of inflation; 
                and
                    (C) published tuition and fees at private nonprofit 
                4-year colleges and universities increased at an 
                average rate of 2.2 percent per year above the rate of 
                inflation.
            (4) Federal financial aid for higher education has also 
        seen a dramatic increase. The portion of the Federal student 
        aid portfolio composed of Direct Loans, Federal Family 
        Education Loans, and Perkins Loans with outstanding balances 
        grew by 119 percent between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 
        2014.
            (5) This spending has failed to make college more 
        affordable.
            (6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Obama 
        noted: ``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 now stands at nearly $1.2 
        trillion. This makes student loans the second largest balance 
        of consumer debt, 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 2017 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 
        $5,775 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) 8.7 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.
            (3) The House Education and Workforce Committee 
        successfully consolidated 15 job training programs in the 
        recently enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
    (d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of this 
resolution to address the failings in the current workforce development 
system, by--
            (1) further streamlining and consolidating Federal job 
        training programs; 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. 812. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) For years, there has been serious concern regarding the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) bureaucratic mismanagement 
        and continuous failure to provide veterans timely access to 
        health care and benefits.
            (2) In 2014, reports started breaking across the Nation 
        that VA medical centers were manipulating wait-list documents 
        to hide long delays veterans were facing to receive health 
        care. The VA hospital scandal led to the immediate resignation 
        of then-Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki.
            (3) In 2015, for the first time ever, VA health care was 
        added to the ``high-risk'' list of the Government 
        Accountability Office (GAO), due to management and oversight 
        failures that have directly resulted in risks to the 
        timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and quality of health care.
            (4) In response to the scandal, the House Committee on 
        Veterans' Affairs held several oversight hearings and 
        ultimately enacted the Veterans' Access, Choice and 
        Accountability Act of 2014 (VACAA) (Public Law 113-146) to 
        address these problems. VACAA provided $15 billion in emergency 
        resources to fund internal health care needs within the 
        department and provided veterans enhanced access to private-
        sector health care under the new Veterans Choice Program.
    (b) Policy on the Department of Veterans Affairs.--This budget 
supports the continued oversight efforts by the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs to ensure the VA is not only transparent and 
accountable, but also successful in achieving its goals in providing 
timely health care and benefits to America's veterans. The Budget 
Committee will continue to closely monitor the VA's progress to ensure 
resources provided by Congress are sufficient and efficiently used to 
provide needed benefits and services to veterans.

SEC. 813. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL ACCOUNTING METHODOLOGIES.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) Given the thousands of Federal programs and trillions 
        of dollars the Federal Government spends each year, assessing 
        and accounting for Federal fiscal activities and liabilities is 
        a complex undertaking.
            (2) Current methods of accounting leave much to be desired 
        in capturing the full scope of government and in presenting 
        information in a clear and compelling way that illuminates the 
        best options going forward.
            (3) Most fiscal analysis produced by the Congressional 
        Budget Office (CBO) is conducted over a relatively short time 
        horizon: 10 or 25 years. While this time frame is useful for 
        most purposes, it fails to consider the fiscal consequences 
        over the longer term.
            (4) Additionally, current accounting methodology does not 
        provide an analysis of how the Federal Government's fiscal 
        situation over the long run affects Americans of various age 
        cohorts.
            (5) Another consideration is how Federal programs should be 
        accounted for. The ``accrual method'' of accounting records 
        revenue when it is earned and expenses when they are incurred, 
        while the ``cash method'' records revenue and expenses when 
        cash is actually paid or received.
            (6) The Federal budget accounts for most programs using 
        cash accounting. Some programs, however, particularly loan and 
        loan guarantee programs, are accounted for using accrual 
        methods.
            (7) GAO has indicated that accrual accounting may provide a 
        more accurate estimation of the Federal Government's 
        liabilities than cash accounting for some programs specifically 
        those that provide some form of insurance.
            (8) Where accrual accounting is used, it is almost 
        exclusively calculated by CBO according to the methodology 
        outlined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). CBO 
        uses fair value methodology instead of FCRA to measure the cost 
        of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example.
            (9) FCRA methodology, however, understates the risk and 
        thus the true cost of Federal programs. An alternative is fair 
        value methodology, which uses discount rates that incorporate 
        the risk inherent to the type of liability being estimated in 
        addition to Treasury discount rates of the proper maturity 
        length.
            (10) The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that 
        ``adopting a fair-value approach would provide a more 
        comprehensive way to measure the costs of Federal credit 
        programs and would permit more level comparisons between those 
        costs and the costs of other forms of federal assistance'' than 
        the current approach under FCRA.
    (b) Policy on Federal Accounting Methodologies.--It is the policy 
of this resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the 
Congressional Budget Office and the public affected by Federal 
budgetary choices, adopt Governmentwide reforms of budget and 
accounting practices so the American people and their representatives 
can more readily understand the fiscal situation of the Government of 
the United States and the options best suited to improving it. Such 
reforms may include but should not be limited to the following:
            (1) Providing additional metrics to enhance our current 
        analysis by considering our fiscal situation comprehensively, 
        over an extended time horizon, and as it affects Americans of 
        various age cohorts.
            (2) Expanding the use of accrual accounting where 
        appropriate.
            (3) Accounting for certain Federal credit programs using 
        fair value accounting as opposed to the current approach under 
        the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.

SEC. 814. POLICY STATEMENT ON SCOREKEEPING FOR OUTYEAR BUDGETARY 
                    EFFECTS IN APPROPRIATION ACTS.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
        directs the Committee on the Budget to provide an allocation of 
        budgetary resources to the Committee on Appropriations for the 
        budget year covered by a concurrent resolution on the budget.
            (2) The allocation of budgetary resources provided by the 
        Committee on the Budget to the Committee on Appropriations 
        covers a period of one fiscal year only, which is effective for 
        the budget year.
            (3) An appropriation Act, joint resolution, amendment 
        thereto or conference report thereon may contain changes to 
        programs that result in direct budgetary effects that occur 
        beyond the budget year and beyond the period for which the 
        allocation of budgetary resources provided by the Committee on 
        the Budget is effective.
            (4) The allocation of budgetary resources provided to the 
        Committee on Appropriations does not currently anticipate or 
        capture direct outyear budgetary effects to programs.
            (5) Budget enforcement could be improved by capturing the 
        direct outyear budgetary effects caused by appropriation Acts 
        and using this information to determine the appropriate 
        allocations of budgetary resources to the Committee on 
        Appropriations when considering future concurrent resolutions 
        on the budget.
    (b) Policy Statement.--It is the policy of the House of 
Representatives to more effectively allocate budgetary resources and 
accurately enforce budget targets by agreeing to a procedure by which 
the Committee on the Budget should consider the direct outyear 
budgetary effects of changes to mandatory programs enacted in 
appropriations bills, joint resolutions, amendments thereto or 
conference reports thereon when setting the allocation of budgetary 
resources for the Committee on Appropriations in a concurrent 
resolution on the budget. The relevant committees of jurisdiction are 
directed to consult on a procedure during fiscal year 2016 and include 
recommendations for implementing such procedure in the fiscal year 2017 
concurrent resolution on the budget.

SEC. 815. POLICY STATEMENT ON REDUCING UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, AND 
                    UNAUTHORIZED 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 its report to Congress on Government Efficiency and 
        Effectiveness, the Comptroller General has stated that 
        addressing the identified waste, duplication, and overlap in 
        Federal programs could ``lead to tens of billions of dollars of 
        additional savings.''
            (3) In 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 the GAO issued reports 
        showing excessive duplication and redundancy in Federal 
        programs including--
                    (A) two hundred nine Science, Technology, 
                Engineering, and Mathematics education programs in 13 
                different Federal agencies at a cost of $3 billion 
                annually;
                    (B) two hundred separate Department of Justice 
                crime prevention and victim services grant programs 
                with an annual cost of $3.9 billion in 2010;
                    (C) twenty 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) seventeen separate Homeland Security 
                preparedness grant programs that spent $37 billion 
                between fiscal year 2011 and 2012;
                    (E) fourteen grant and loan programs, and three tax 
                benefits to reduce diesel emissions;
                    (F) ninety-four different initiatives run by 11 
                different agencies to encourage ``green building'' in 
                the private sector; and
                    (G) twenty-three agencies implemented approximately 
                670 renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year 2010 at 
                a cost of nearly $15 billion.
            (4) The Federal Government spends more than $80 billion 
        each year for approximately 1,400 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.
            (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 more than $50 billion in savings annually.
            (6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $106 billion in 
        improper payments in fiscal year 2013.
            (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 Reducing Unnecessary, Wasteful, and Unauthorized 
Spending.--
            (1) Each authorizing committee annually should 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.
            (2) Committees of jurisdiction should review all 
        unauthorized programs funded through annual appropriations to 
        determine if the programs are operating efficiently and 
        effectively.
            (3) Committees should reauthorize those programs that in 
        the committees' judgment should continue to receive funding.
            (4) For those programs not reauthorized by committees, the 
        House of Representatives should enforce the limitations on 
        funding such unauthorized programs in the House rules. If the 
        strictures of the rules are deemed to be too rapid in 
        prohibiting spending on unauthorized programs, then milder 
        measures should be adopted and enforced until a return to the 
        full prohibition of clause 2(a)(1) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
        the House.

SEC. 816. 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 $844 billion in unobligated balances at the close of 
        fiscal year 2015.
            (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary spending 
        previously made available by Congress that remains available 
        for expenditure.
            (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 canceling unobligated 
        balances of funds that are no longer needed.
    (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees should 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. 817. POLICY STATEMENT ON AGENCY FEES AND SPENDING.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) A number of Federal agencies and organizations have 
        permanent authority to collect fees and other offsetting 
        collections and to spend these collected funds.
            (2) The total amount of offsetting fees and offsetting 
        collections is estimated by the Office of Management and Budget 
        to be $525 billion in fiscal year 2016.
            (3) Agency budget justifications are, in some cases, not 
        fully transparent about the amount of program activity funded 
        through offsetting collections or fees. This lack of 
        transparency prevents effective and accountable government.
    (b) Policy on Agency Fees and Spending.--It is the policy of this 
resolution that Congress must reassert its constitutional prerogative 
to control spending and conduct oversight. To do so, Congress should 
enact legislation requiring programs that are funded through fees, 
offsetting receipts, or offsetting collections to be allocated new 
budget authority annually. Such allocation may arise from--
            (1) legislation originating from the authorizing committee 
        of jurisdiction for the agency or program; or
            (2) fee and account specific allocations included in annual 
        appropriation Acts.

SEC. 818. 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. 819. POLICY STATEMENT ON ``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 should 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.

SEC. 820. POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDING.

    (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
            (1) Russian aggression, the growing threats of the Islamic 
        State of Iraq and the Levant in the Middle East, North Korean 
        and Iranian nuclear and missile programs, and continued Chinese 
        investments in high-end military capabilities and cyber warfare 
        shape the parameters of an increasingly complex and challenging 
        security environment.
            (2) All four current service chiefs testified that the 
        National Military Strategy could not be executed at 
        sequestration levels.
            (3) The independent and bipartisan National Defense Panel 
        conducted risk assessments of force structure changes triggered 
        by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) and concluded that in 
        addition to previous cuts to defense dating back to 2009, the 
        sequestration of defense discretionary spending has ``caused 
        significant shortfalls in U.S. military readiness and both 
        present and future capabilities''.
            (4) The President's fiscal year 2016 budget irresponsibly 
        ignores current law and requests a defense budget $38 billion 
        above the caps for rhetorical gain. By creating an expectation 
        of spending without a plan to avoid the BCA's guaranteed 
        sequester upon breaching of its caps, the White House's 
        proposal compounds the fiscal uncertainty that has affected the 
        military's ability to adequately plan for future contingencies 
        and make investments crucial for the Nation's defense.
            (5) The President's budget proposes $1.8 trillion in tax 
        increases, in addition to the $1.7 trillion in tax hikes the 
        Administration has already imposed. The President's tax 
        increases would further burden economic growth and is not a 
        realistic source for offsets to fund defense sequester 
        replacement.
    (b) Policy on Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Funding.--In fiscal 
year 2015, the House-passed budget resolution anticipated $566 billion 
for national defense in the discretionary base budget for fiscal year 
2016. With no necessary statutory change yet provided by Congress, the 
BCA statute would require limiting national defense discretionary base 
funding to $523 billion in fiscal year 2016. However, in total with $90 
billion, the House Budget estimate for Overseas Contingency Operations 
funding for the Department of Defense, the fiscal year 2016 budget 
provides over $613 billion total for defense spending that is higher 
than the President's budget request for the fiscal year. This 
concurrent resolution provides $22 billion above the President's Five 
Year Defense Plan and $151 billion above the 10-year totals. This would 
also be $387 billion above the 10-year total for current levels.
    (c) Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund.--(1) The budget 
resolution recognizes the need to ensure robust funding for national 
defense while maintaining overall fiscal discipline. The budget 
resolution prioritizes our national defense and the needs of the 
warfighter by providing needed dollars through the creation of the 
``Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund''.
    (2) The Defense Readiness and Modernization Fund provides the 
mechanism for Congress to responsibly allocate in a deficit-neutral way 
the resources the military needs to secure the safety and liberty of 
United States citizens from threats at home and abroad. The Defense 
Readiness and Modernization Fund will provide the chair of the 
Committee on the Budget of the House the ability to increase 
allocations to support legislation that would provide for the 
Department of Defense warfighting capabilities, modernization, a 
temporary increase in end strength, training and maintenance associated 
with combat readiness, activities to reach full auditability of the 
Department of Defense's financial statements, and implementation of 
military and compensation reforms.
    (d) Sequester Replacement for National Defense.--This concurrent 
resolution encourages an immediate reevaluation of Federal Government 
priorities to maintain the strength of America's national security 
posture. In identifying policies to restructure and stabilize the 
Government's major entitlement programs which, along with net interest, 
will consume all Federal revenue in less than 20 years. The budget also 
charts a course that can ensure the availability of needed national 
security resources.

                                  [all]