H. Rept. 112-421 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)
March 23, 2012, As Reported by the Budget Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 112-421 - CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET-- FISCAL YEAR 2013




[House Report 112-421]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session                                                      112-421
_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
                            ON THE BUDGET--
                            FISCAL YEAR 2013

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 112

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2013 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2022

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


 March 23, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
              
              
                            
         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2013


112th Congress 				                                           Report
                    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 
 2d Session                                                     112-421
_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

                            ON THE BUDGET--

                            FISCAL YEAR 2013

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              to accompany

                            H. Con. Res. 112

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2013 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2022

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


 March 23, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                     PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey            CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho              Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California            ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California              MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
TOM PRICE, Georgia                   BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana          MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             TIM RYAN, Ohio
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee               DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
BILL FLORES, Texas                   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas                KAREN BASS, California
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana               SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan
TODD ROKITA, Indiana
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
ROB WOODALL, Georgia

                           Professional Staff

                     Austin Smythe, Staff Director
                Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director
                            C O N T E N T S

                                                                   Page
Statement of Congressional Authority Under the Constitution and 
  the Law........................................................     3
Introduction: A Blueprint for American Renewal...................     5
Summary Tables--Spending and Revenues:
    Table 1. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution..................    12
    Table 2. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Discretionary 
      Spending...................................................    15
    Table 3. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Mandatory 
      Spending...................................................    17
    Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution.......    20
    Table 5. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the 
      President's Budget.........................................    21
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution....................    23
    Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and 
      Private Forecasters........................................    25
    Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 
      Resolution.................................................    27
    Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal 
      Years 2011-2015............................................    28
Function-by-Function Presentation................................    47
    050 National Defense.........................................    49
    150 International Relations..................................    53
    250 General Science, Space, and Technology...................    57
    270 Energy...................................................    59
    300 Natural Resources and Environment........................    63
    350 Agriculture..............................................    67
    370 Commerce and Housing Credit..............................    69
    400 Transportation...........................................    77
    450 Community and Regional Development.......................    81
    500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services.....    85
    550 Health...................................................    91
    570 Medicare.................................................    95
    600 Income Security..........................................    99
    650 Social Security..........................................   103
    700 Veterans Benefits and Services...........................   107
    750 Administration of Justice................................   109
    800 General Government.......................................   111
    900 Net Interest.............................................   113
    920 Allowances...............................................   115
    950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts........................   119
    970 Global War on Terrorism and Related Activities...........   121
Revenue..........................................................   123
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Ways and Means...........   127
Reprioritizing Sequester Savings.................................   131
    Table 9. Reconciliation Savings by Authorizing Committee.....   135
The Long-Term Budget Outlook.....................................   137
    Table 10. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the CBO 
      Alternative Fiscal Scenario................................   141
Section-by-Section Description...................................   143
    Title I. Spending and Revenue Levels.........................   143
    Title II. Reconciliation.....................................   144
    Title III. Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040, 
      and 2050...................................................   145
    Title IV. Reserve Funds......................................   146
    Title V. Budget Enforcement..................................   147
    Title VI. Policy.............................................   151
    Title VII. Sense of the House Provisions.....................   153
The Congressional Budget Process.................................   155
    Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee 
      on Appropriations..........................................   158
    Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget 
      amounts)...................................................   159
Enforcing Budgetary Levels.......................................   163
Reconciliation...................................................   165
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations...................   167
Votes of the Committee...........................................   169
Other Matters To Be Discussed Under the Rules of the House.......   195
Minority Views...................................................   196
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.....   201
                              T A B L E S

                                                                   Page
Table 1. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution......................    12
Table 2. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Discretionary 
  Spending.......................................................    15
Table 3. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Mandatory Spending...    17
Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution...........    20
Table 5. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the President's 
  Budget.........................................................    21
Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and Private 
  Forecasters....................................................    25
Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 
  Resolution.....................................................    27
Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal 
  Years 2011-2015................................................    28
Table 9. Reconciliation Savings by Authorizing Committee.........   135
Table 10. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the CBO 
  Alternative Fiscal Scenario....................................   141
Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee on 
  Appropriations.................................................   158
Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget amounts)   159


                                                                       
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-421

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

 
                 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--
                            FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                _______
                                

  ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL 
  YEAR 2013 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL 
                        YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2022

                                _______
                                

 March 23, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                    [To accompany H. Con. Res. 112]
Statement of Congressional Authority Under the Constitution and the Law

                              ----------                              


    Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the 
power to appropriate funds from the Treasury, pay the 
obligations of and raise revenue for the Federal Government, 
and publish statements and accounts of all financial 
transactions.
    In addition, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act 
of 1974 requires Congress to write a budget each year 
representing its plan to carry out these transactions in the 
forthcoming fiscal years. While the President is required to 
propose his administration's budget requests for Congress's 
consideration, Congress alone is responsible for writing the 
laws that raise revenues, appropriate funds, and prioritize 
taxpayer dollars within an overall Federal budget.
    The budget resolution is the only legislative vehicle that 
views government comprehensively. It provides the framework for 
the consideration of other legislation. Ultimately, a budget is 
much more than series of numbers. It also serves as an 
expression of Congress's principles, vision, and philosophy of 
governing.
    This budget, submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives 
for fiscal year 2013 and beyond, builds upon the budget that 
was written and passed by the new House majority last year. 
Like last year's budget, it is offered on time, in accordance 
with the 1974 Budget Act, out of respect for the law and in 
order that the public be given a timely and transparent 
accounting of their government's work.
    Like last year's budget, it is committed to the timeless 
principles of American government enshrined in the U.S. 
Constitution--liberty, limited government, and equality under 
the rule of law.
    And like last year's budget, it seeks to guide the Nation's 
policies by those principles, freeing it from the crushing 
burden of debt now threatening its future.
    This budget is submitted, as prescribed by law, to clarify 
the challenges and the choices facing the American people, to 
provide a blueprint for the orderly execution of Congress's 
constitutional duties, and to describe a path forward that 
renews the promise of this exceptional Nation.
                              Introduction

                              ----------                              


                          A Nation Challenged

    The challenges this Nation faces are among the largest in 
its history.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    For years, bad policies advanced by both political parties 
have contributed to an irresponsible build-up of debt in the 
economy, and this debt now poses a fundamental challenge to the 
American way of life.
    This build-up of debt has manifested its effects in both 
the private and public sectors. In 2008, excessive leverage in 
the financial sector overwhelmed many banks, businesses and 
families. Irresponsible decisions in Washington and on Wall 
Street fueled a housing-price bubble that collapsed and turned 
mortgage-backed securities into ``toxic assets.'' It soon 
became clear that these assets, which were spread throughout 
the financial sector, posed a systemic risk to the economy. The 
resulting wave of panics, bankruptcies and foreclosures brought 
the global financial system to the brink of collapse.
    America is still living with the painful consequences of 
that crisis today. While some of the Federal Government's 
emergency actions in late 2008 helped to stem the immediate 
financial crisis, much of its intervention in the wake of the 
crisis simply aggravated the underlying problems. In most 
cases, policymakers sought to address the symptoms of the 
crisis by transferring private-sector debt to the public 
balance sheet. Since Election Day 2008, debt held by the public 
has increased by roughly $4.5 trillion--a 70 percent increase 
in a mere four years.
    This remedy didn't just ignore the underlying cause of the 
problem--it made the problem far worse. In Europe, the 
accumulation of public-sector debt now threatens to cause an 
even bigger calamity than the one caused by private-sector debt 
in 2008. The world's new ``toxic asset'' is the sovereign debt 
of irresponsible European governments, infecting the balance 
sheets of major banks and threatening the stability of the 
global economy. And in the United States, government debt 
continues to rise at a frightening pace, raising fears that a 
similar crisis may happen here.
    The growing possibility of such a crisis is creating 
debilitating uncertainty about the future, hurting job creation 
and economic growth today. The economy has picked up in recent 
quarters, but overall growth and job creation remain sub-par, 
and unprecedented numbers of Americans have simply given up 
trying to find work. Real GDP grew by just 1.7 percent in 2011, 
and private-sector forecasters are calling for growth of 2.3 
percent in 2012--well below the 3.0 percent historical trend 
rate of U.S. growth and just a fraction of the growth pace 
observed in a typical recovery from recession. Noted 
economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, 
have argued that enacting a credible plan to deal with 
America's long-term debt build-up would have a positive effect 
on growth and jobs immediately.
    Unfortunately, in the years following the meltdown, the 
President and his party's leaders failed to use their full 
control of Washington to offer any plan to lift the debt and 
foster sustainable economic growth. Instead, the crisis was 
used as an excuse to enact unprecedented and counterproductive 
expansions of government power. A massive stimulus package 
failed to deliver promised reductions in unemployment. An 
unpopular health care takeover was jammed through Congress on a 
party-line vote. A short-sighted financial-regulatory overhaul 
failed to fix what was broken on Wall Street and made future 
bailouts more likely. And Federal policymakers in thrall to a 
misguided form of environmental activism pushed through 
regulations and other policies that are making energy more 
expensive in the midst of a weak economy.
    Through it all, the government's fiscal position sharply 
deteriorated. Total Federal debt has now surpassed the size of 
the entire U.S. economy. And the government's non-partisan 
auditors have issued report after report warning of even larger 
debts to come, driven by health and retirement security 
programs that are being weakened by severe demographic and 
economic challenges.
    Instead of taking action, the administration punted the 
Nation's fiscal problems to a bipartisan commission, whose 
recommendations it proceeded to ignore in favor of proposals 
filled with gimmicks instead of real solutions. And the 
Democratic leaders of the Senate have altogether abandoned 
their legal obligation to provide a budget plan--it has been 
three years since the Senate passed a budget.

                        A Choice of Two Futures

    Both parties share the blame for failing to take action 
over the years. But while Republicans offered a budget last 
year that would lift the crushing burden of debt and restore 
economic growth, the President and his party's leaders are 
still refusing to take seriously the urgent need to advance 
credible solutions to the looming fiscal crisis. Instead, they 
are still offering little more than false attacks and failed 
leadership.
    Questioned about this disappointing reality at a recent 
House Budget Committee hearing, Treasury Secretary Timothy 
Geithner admitted, ``We're not coming before you to say we have 
a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know 
is we don't like yours.''\1\ The President's strategy seems to 
amount to this: Let somebody else propose a path forward, and 
then attack them for political gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Geithner, Timothy. ``The President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget: 
Revenue and Economic Policy Proposals.'' House Budget Committee 
hearing. February 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This budget offers a better path. The following report lays 
out the challenge--and the choice--that America faces in each 
key area of the budget. The common thread connecting them all 
is that a sharp and sudden debt crisis would threaten the 
entire American project: It would weaken national security, 
shred the safety net that vulnerable Americans rely on, break 
promises to seniors, impose massive tax increases on families, 
and leave all Americans with a diminished future.
    This looming crisis represents an enormous challenge, but 
it also represents a defining choice: whether to continue down 
the path of debt, doubt and decline, or put the Nation back on 
the path to prosperity. It also represents a tremendous 
opportunity for this generation of Americans to rise to the 
challenge, as previous generations have, and fulfill this 
Nation's unique legacy of leaving future generations with a 
freer, more prosperous America.

                    A Blueprint for American Renewal

    This budget sets forth a model of government guided by the 
timeless principles of the American Idea: free enterprise and 
economic liberty; limited government and spending restraint; 
traditional family and community values; and a strong national 
defense.
    The Federal Government has strayed from these American 
principles. This budget offers a set of fundamental reforms to 
put the Nation back on the right track.
    The role of the Federal Government is both vital and 
limited. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually 
does not do any of them very well. Limited government also 
means effective government. This budget recommits the Federal 
Government to the security of every American citizen's natural 
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while 
fostering an environment for economic growth and private-sector 
job creation.

          1. Prioritize defense spending to keep America safe

    With American men and women in uniform currently engaged 
with a fierce enemy and dealing with emerging threats around 
the world, this budget takes several steps to ensure that 
national security remains government's top priority.
    Providing for the common defense: This budget rejects 
proposals to make thoughtless, across-the-board cuts in funding 
for national defense. Instead, it provides $554 billion for 
national defense spending, an amount that is consistent with 
America's military goals and strategies. This budget preserves 
necessary defense spending to protect vital national interests 
today and ensures future real growth in defense spending to 
modernize the armed forces for the challenges of tomorrow.
    Reprioritizing sequester savings to protect the Nation's 
security: The defense budget is slated to be cut by $55 
billion, or 10 percent, in January of 2013 through the 
sequester mechanism enacted as part of the Budget Control Act 
of 2011. This reduction would be on top of the $487 billion in 
cuts over ten years proposed in President Obama's budget. This 
budget eliminates these additional cuts in the defense budget 
by replacing them with other spending reductions. Spending 
restraint is critical, and defense spending needs to be 
executed with effectiveness and accountability. But government 
should take care to ensure that spending is prioritized 
according to the nation's needs, not treated indiscriminately 
when it comes to making cuts. The nation has no higher priority 
than safeguarding the safety and liberty of its citizens from 
threats at home and abroad.

              2. End cronyism and restore free enterprise

    A growing economy, increased employment and higher wages 
will come from traditional American ingenuity and enterprise, 
not from government. To achieve this end, small businesses need 
to be empowered, and the size and scope of Washington need to 
be reduced so that the hard work and enterprise of Americans 
can lead a strong, sustained recovery.
    Ending corporate welfare: There is a growing and pernicious 
trend of government overreach into the private economy--a trend 
that stacks the deck in favor of entrenched interests and 
stifles growth. This budget stops Washington from picking 
winners and losers across the economy. It rolls back corporate 
subsidies in the energy sector. It ends the taxpayer bailouts 
of failed financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. It repeals the government takeover of health care 
enacted last year and begins to move toward patient-centered 
reform. And it reduces the bureaucracy's reach by applying 
private-sector realities to the Federal Government's civilian 
workforce.
    Boosting American energy resources: Too great a percentage 
of America's vast natural resources remain locked behind 
bureaucratic barriers and red tape. This budget lifts 
moratoriums on safe, responsible energy exploration in the 
United States, ends Washington policies that drive up gas 
prices, and unlocks American energy production to help lower 
costs, create jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
    Streamlining other government agencies: Domestic government 
agencies have grown too much and too fast over the past decade, 
and much of their funding has gone to harmful programs and 
dead-end projects. This budget starts to restore spending 
discipline. It builds on efforts undertaken last year to 
contain the government's growth, and it targets hundreds of 
government programs that have outlived their usefulness.

                  3. Strengthen the social safety net

    This budget builds upon the historic progress of bipartisan 
welfare reform in the late 1990s. It strengthens Medicaid, food 
stamps and job-training programs by providing States with 
greater flexibility to help recipients build self-sufficient 
futures for themselves and their families.
    Repairing a broken Medicaid system: Medicaid's flawed 
financing structure has created rapidly rising costs that are 
nearly impossible to check. Mandate upon mandate has been 
foisted upon States under the flawed premise that the best 
ideas for repairing this important health care safety net can 
come only from Washington. This budget ends that misguided 
approach and instead converts the Federal share of Medicaid 
spending into a block grant, thus freeing States to tailor 
their Medicaid programs to the unique needs of their own 
populations.
    Prioritizing assistance for those in need: The welfare 
reforms of the 1990s, despite their success, were never 
extended beyond cash welfare to other means-tested programs. 
This budget completes the successful work of transforming 
welfare by reforming other areas of America's safety net to 
ensure that welfare does not entrap able-bodied citizens into 
lives of complacency and dependency.
    Ensuring educational and job-training opportunities for a 
21st century economy: The government's well-intentioned 
approach to higher education and job training in America has 
failed those who most need these forms of assistance. Federal 
tuition subsidies are often captured by (and to a certain 
extent drive) rapidly rising tuition costs for those higher-
education programs that should be the first rung on the ladder 
of opportunity. Meanwhile, dozens of job-training programs 
suffer from overlapping responsibilities and too often lack 
accountability.
    This budget begins to address the problem of tuition 
inflation and consolidates a complex maze of dozens of job-
training programs into more accessible, accountable career 
scholarships aimed at empowering American workers with the 
resources they need to pursue their dreams.

        4. Fulfill the mission of health and retirement security

    This budget puts an end to empty promises from Washington, 
offering instead real security through real reforms. The 
framework established in this budget ensures no disruptions to 
existing health and retirement benefit programs for those 
beneficiaries who have organized their retirements around them, 
while at the same time building stronger programs that future 
beneficiaries can count on when they retire.
    Saving Medicare: Medicare is facing an unprecedented fiscal 
challenge. Its failed reliance on bureaucratic price controls 
and government rationing, combined with rising health care 
costs, is jeopardizing seniors' access to critical care and 
threatening to bankrupt the system--and ultimately the Nation. 
This budget saves Medicare by fixing flaws in its structure so 
it will be there for future generations. By putting these 
solutions in place now, this budget ensures that changes will 
not affect those in and near retirement in any way.
    When younger workers become eligible for Medicare a decade 
or more from today, they will be able to choose from a list of 
guaranteed coverage options, including a traditional Medicare 
fee-for-service plan. This flexibility will allow seniors to 
enjoy the same kind of choices in their plans that members of 
Congress enjoy. Medicare will provide a payment to subsidize 
the cost of the plan. In addition, Medicare will provide 
increased assistance for lower-income beneficiaries and those 
with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals--
with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick--will 
guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health 
security for America's seniors.
    Advancing Social Security solutions: The risk to Social 
Security, driven by demographic changes, is nearer at hand than 
most acknowledge. This budget heads off a crisis by calling on 
the President and both chambers of Congress to ensure the 
solvency of this critical program.

                     5. Enact pro-growth tax reform

    This budget recognizes that the Nation's fiscal health 
requires a vibrant, growing private sector. It charts a 
prosperous path forward by reforming a tax code that is overly 
complex and unfair.
    Individual tax reform: The current code for individuals is 
too complicated, with high marginal rates that discourage hard 
work and entrepreneurship. This budget embraces the widely 
acknowledged principles of pro-growth tax reform by proposing 
to consolidate tax brackets and lower tax rates, with just two 
rates of 10 and 25 percent, while clearing out the burdensome 
tangle of loopholes that distort economic activity.
    Corporate tax reform: American businesses are overburdened 
by one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the 
developed world. The perverse incentives created by the 
corporate income tax do a lot of damage to both workers and 
investors, yet the tax itself raises relatively little revenue. 
This budget improves incentives for job creators to work, 
invest, and innovate in the United States by lowering the 
corporate rate from 35 percent to a much more competitive 25 
percent and by shifting to a territorial system that will 
ensure a level playing field for American businesses.

               6. Change Washington's culture of spending

    Across the political spectrum, experts agree that the 
budget process is badly broken and in need of reform. The 
process fails to control spending, fails to provide adequate 
oversight, and fails to allow the transparency needed for 
accountability to the Nation's citizens.
    Controlling spending: The budget process in Washington 
contains numerous structural flaws that bias the Federal 
Government toward ever-higher levels of spending. This budget 
would lock in savings with enforceable spending caps and budget 
process reforms, limiting what Washington spends and how tax 
dollars are spent.
    Enhancing oversight: This budget gives Congress greater 
tools to perform oversight over wasteful Washington spending.
    Increasing transparency: This budget promotes reforms that 
would give taxpayers more information over how Washington is 
spending their hard-earned dollars.

                  7. Lift the crushing burden of debt

    This budget charts a sustainable path forward, ultimately 
erases the budget deficit completely, and begins paying down 
the national debt.
    Americans truly face a monumental choice--a choice that can 
no longer be avoided.
    The Path to Prosperity advances the serious conversation 
begun last year about the future of this exceptional Nation and 
the fundamental choices Americans must soon make about the kind 
of Nation they want America to be.
    This budget would put in place a comprehensive framework to 
address the Nation's greatest challenges. It provides an 
opportunity to initiate the actual work of statecraft. The 
elected representatives of the American people--in the House of 
Representatives, in the Senate and in the White House--now must 
take up this budget and start building the future Americans 
deserve.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

             Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution

                              ----------                              


                              Introduction

    The U.S. economy picked up in the final quarter of 2011 but 
overall growth and job creation remain sub-par. Real gross 
domestic product [GDP] grew by just 1.7 percent in 2011 and 
private-sector forecasters are calling for growth of 2.2 
percent in 2012--well below the 3.0 percent historical trend 
rate of U.S. growth and just a fraction of the growth pace 
observed in a typical recovery from recession. Employment 
increased by 243,000 in January, an encouraging sign, and the 
unemployment rate edged down to a 3-year low of 8.3 percent but 
there is still an enormous ``jobs deficit'' in the economy. It 
is sobering to point out that of the nearly 8.8 million jobs 
that were lost in the 2008/2009 recession and aftermath, only 
about one-third have been recovered. Economists now estimate 
that with such sub-par economic growth the unemployment rate 
will probably not return to its pre-recession level until very 
late in the decade.
    Three key factors are likely to contribute to below-trend 
U.S. economic growth in the near term: (1) likelihood of a 
recession in Europe and fears of global financial market 
contagion sparked by Europe's ongoing sovereign debt crisis, 
(2) prolonged weakness in the U.S. housing market, including a 
continued decline in home values, (3) only modest job growth, 
which constrains wage and income growth and therefore consumer 
spending (which typically accounts for 70 percent of U.S. GDP). 
In addition, gasoline prices have risen 15 percent since the 
beginning of the year and will likely rise further this spring 
and summer, which promises to reduce consumers' purchasing 
power. Noting the sub-par growth outlook and the attendant 
downside risks, the Federal Reserve believes that it will most 
likely keep interest rates at or near zero until the end of 
2014.

                     The Current Economic Situation

    The current economic data suggest that the U.S. economy is 
expanding at a moderate pace, although the recovery from the 
recession and financial crisis still promises to be long and 
difficult.
    Real GDP grew by 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011, 
up from 1.8 percent in the third quarter. Roughly two-thirds of 
that increase, however, was due to business inventory 
restocking, a temporary boost to GDP that will not be sustained 
in the coming quarters. The economy grew by a sluggish 1.7 
percent in 2011 and the Blue Chip consensus of private-sector 
forecasters sees GDP rising by just 2.2 percent in 2012. The 
Federal Reserve has characterized the current economic recovery 
as ``uneven and modest by historical standards.''
    Total payroll employment rose by 227,000 in February. 
Recent monthly job gains have been encouraging, though at this 
pace it would still take until the end of the decade to return 
to a pre-recession level of unemployment.
    The unemployment rate remained at a three-year low of 8.3 
percent in February. Still, a broader gauge of under-
employment, which includes people who have stopped looking for 
work or who can't find full-time jobs, is still over 15 
percent. In addition, the long-term unemployment remains near 
record levels as the share of the unemployed population who 
have been out of work for six months or more is 43 percent.
    The housing market remains a key drag on growth. Housing 
prices have yet to fully bottom out and have showed some 
renewed signs of decline in parts of the country. The ratio of 
home equity to income is at an all-time low--a measure of the 
enormous amount of housing wealth that has been lost due to the 
drop in home prices. As households feel less wealthy, they are 
less likely to spend, which puts a damper on the overall 
economy.
    Average U.S. gasoline prices have risen 15 percent so far 
this year as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have 
contributed to a sharp increase in oil prices. Analysts point 
out that gas prices will likely continue to rise through the 
spring and summer months, with some experts warning that prices 
could reach $5 per gallon in some parts of the country. This 
run-up in prices will have the effect of dampening consumers' 
purchasing power.
    The rise in energy prices is likely to lead to a bump-up in 
the overall rate of inflation in coming months, though the 
Federal Reserve expects this increase to be temporary. The Fed 
generally expects inflation will run ``at or below'' its 
preferred rate of 2.0 percent (as measured by the price 
deflator for personal consumption expenditures) in the coming 
quarters.
    The yield on 10-year Treasuries has dipped to an all-time 
low of just under 2 percent in recent months. Jitters about the 
debt/ financial crisis in Europe have caused global investors 
to seek out a relatively risk-free safe haven. This dynamic has 
benefited the Treasury market and has helped to push U.S. 
borrowing rates to very low levels.
    The stock market has been on a recovery track after posting 
sharp declines in the latter part of last year. Since dipping 
to a cyclical low last October the S&P 500 has gained about 20 
percent. This has been due to somewhat more positive U.S. 
economic data combined with some decline in the fear that the 
situation in Europe will spark a more serious global financial 
crisis.

                          The Economic Outlook

    The economic projections from the administration, the CBO, 
and private forecasters generally show moderate to robust 
growth in the next few years, though the range of predictions 
is relatively wide.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    CBO expects real GDP growth of 2.2 percent in 2012, in line 
with private-sector forecasters, before slipping to just 1.0 
percent in 2013. In its forecast, CBO is obligated to assume 
all of the sizeable tax increases and spending reductions that 
are currently built into current law, but which are unlikely to 
occur in their totality. Beyond 2013, CBO expects fairly robust 
annual growth ranging between 3 and nearly 5 percent over the 
medium term. The administration's growth trajectory forecast is 
generally in line with that of CBO, though on average it is 
slightly more optimistic on the rate of growth, particularly in 
the latter part of the decade. In contrast, the private-sector 
Blue Chip growth forecast is more subdued than either the CBO 
or the administration, with annual GDP growth failing to breach 
the 3 percent threshold throughout the 10-year horizon.
    Most forecasts see the unemployment rate declining slowly 
from its current elevated level. CBO, for instance, expects the 
unemployment rate to remain above 7 percent until the middle of 
the decade. Both CBO and the administration don't see the 
unemployment rate falling back to the pre-recession, pre-
financial crisis range of just over 5.0 percent until the 
latter part of the decade. The Blue Chip consensus does not see 
the unemployment rate dipping below 6 percent at any point in 
the 10-year horizon.
    As the economy recovers, the forecasts predict that 
interest rates will gradually move higher. According to CBO, 
the 10-year Treasury rate, which is currently at an all-time 
low below 2 percent, will rise to about 4 percent in 2016 and 5 
percent towards the end of the decade. Both the administration 
and the Blue Chip consensus foresee higher interest rates than 
CBO over both the near and medium-term.
    Rates of inflation are also expected to normalize in the 
coming years from their current low levels. CBO expects 
inflation rates to remain quite low for longer than either the 
administration or the private sector. Under CBO's forecast, 
annual growth in the consumer price index remains below 2 
percent until 2016. In contrast, the Blue Chip consensus sees 
inflation reaching nearly 2.5 percent as early as 2014.
    CBO's annual economic assumptions were adopted for use in 
the budget resolution and are shown in Table 7.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                   FUNCTION-BY-FUNCTION PRESENTATION

                              ----------                              


    The budget resolution often is described as the 
``architecture'' of policy--and the metaphor is fitting in 
several ways. First, the budget resolution is the one 
legislative measure in which the U.S. Congress states a 
framework for the entire Federal Government through a federal 
budget. Second, the measure allows Congress to establish 
priorities through the proposed allocation of resources. Third, 
it establishes total revenue, spending, deficit, and debt 
levels, thus setting overall fiscal policy.
    The budget resolution implements this architecture through 
a myriad of technical components--chiefly numbers and 
procedural mechanisms. Total spending in the budget is divided 
among 21 budget ``functions.'' Each function represents a broad 
area of government activities--national defense, international 
affairs, transportation, education, health, and so on.
    The functions have antecedents dating back decades, but 
they are not directly linked to specific congressional 
committees, agencies of the Executive Branch, or, for the most 
part, particular programs; they transcend these units. Because 
the totals in the functions are prospective--the budget is a 
planning document, not an audit--they are not binding; they 
simply describe how the Budget Committee views the expected 
distribution of resources under the budget's guidelines. But 
the committee allocations that flow from these function levels 
(see ``The Congressional Budget Process'' later in this report) 
do have a means of enforcement; and in that sense, the function 
levels in the resolution are relevant to the programs over 
which legislative committees have jurisdiction.
    The budget functions presented here are the following:
          050 National Defense
          150 International Affairs
          250 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
          950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
          970 Overseas Deployments and Other Activities
    When the function totals and committee allocations differ 
from those estimated in baseline spending projections, it means 
some form of policy change must occur to meet the budget 
levels. The budget does not prescribe the specific policies--
the committees of jurisdiction make those decisions--but it 
does drive changes in policy.
    This budget assumes significant policy changes, and a major 
readjustment of the Federal government's fiscal course. To 
demonstrate the viability of these assumptions--and to prove 
the credibility of the budget itself--this report offers a 
range of policy options to help demonstrate how the budget's 
fiscal goals could be achieved. These options are illustrative; 
as noted, any actual policy changes are the discretion of the 
committees with jurisdiction over the programs involved. 
Nevertheless, the options are serious proposals, the 
projections are based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, 
and the proposals are justified in the report text. They are 
worthy of consideration when House committees develop their 
legislative proposals.
                     FUNCTION 050: NATIONAL DEFENSE

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

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

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $562.2 billion in budget authority 
and $621.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Most of the 
spending in the function is discretionary, which in fiscal year 
2013 totals $554.2 billion in budget authority and $613.5 
billion in outlays. Mandatory spending in 2013 is $7.9 billion 
in budget authority and $7.9 billion in outlays. The 10-year 
totals for budget authority and outlays are $6.306 trillion and 
$6.293 trillion, respectively.
    The recommended discretionary levels are $2.4 billion above 
the President's requested levels and equal to the amounts 
enacted for fiscal year 2012. With nearly 70,000 U.S. soldiers, 
airmen, sailors, and marines engaged in combat operations 
against a fierce and stubborn enemy, it is simply not the time 
to reduce defense spending. This funding level will ensure 
adequate resources to maintain a high level of operational 
readiness in fiscal year 2013 and address the numerous 
operational readiness needs identified by the House Armed 
Services Committee in its Views and Estimates letter on the 
fiscal year 2013 budget request.
    This resolution also protects the defense budget from the 
nearly $1 trillion in indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts 
that would result from the planned sequester under section 302 
of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (see ``Reprioritizing 
Sequester Savings'' for full details on how this budget 
addresses the sequester). Instead of the 10 percent reduction 
that would result from the sequester, this resolution provides 
for modest real growth in each of the out-years of the budget 
resolution. This funding path allows for the much-needed 
modernization of the military's conventional and strategic 
weapons systems.
    This resolution does not, however, provide a blank check 
for the Department of Defense. More than two decades after the 
legal requirement was imposed, DOD is still not auditable. 
Moreover, the civilian workforce at DOD has grown by 89,000 
personnel (11 percent) since 2008. The Department can and 
should become a better steward of the taxpayer funds entrusted 
to it and more efficient in how it chooses to expend those 
funds.
    Secretary Panetta is to be commended for his focus on 
achieving auditability, but the poor track record of DOD in 
achieving previous audit improvement plans raises serious doubt 
as to the likelihood of success in these efforts.
    In 2011, the Department made a good start toward becoming 
more efficient with the $78 billion in efficiency savings that 
were proposed by Secretary Gates and incorporated into the 
budget resolution passed by the House of Representatives. 
Secretary Panetta has proposed an additional $60 billion in 
savings through the more disciplined use of defense resources. 
This resolution assumes these savings can be achieved, but 
cautions against ephemeral savings that merely push costs 
outside DOD's five-year planning window or that produce near-
term savings but result in greater long-term costs.
    A robust national defense requires a substantial commitment 
of national resources, and Congress and the administration must 
remain vigilant to ensure the national defense program is 
executed efficiently and accountably. The Armed Services 
Committee has conducted an aggressive oversight agenda in the 
112th Congress to ``ensure that the Department of Defense is 
operated efficiently and with fiscal discipline in order to 
maximize the return on the taxpayers' investments.'' A critical 
element of that oversight agenda is a review of acquisition 
programs with an eye toward reevaluating those programs that 
``no longer represent the best value for the taxpayer.'' The 
Committee commends the Armed Services Committee for its work in 
this area and encourages further detailed examination of ways 
for the United States to maximize the value of every defense 
dollar.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Fully Fund Military Modernization. The new strategic 
orientation toward the Asia-Pacific region announced by the 
President will place greater reliance on the size and 
capability of U.S. air and naval forces. Unfortunately the 
budget requested by the President in furtherance of this 
strategy does little to address the modernization needs of 
these forces.
    General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, 
has noted that today's Air Force is ``already smaller and older 
than at the end of the post-Cold War downsizing.''\2\ The 
President's budget proposes to delay the Air Force's major 
modernization program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\General Norton Schwartz, ``Air Force Strategic Choices and 
Budget Priorities Brief at the Pentagon,'' January 27, 2012. http://
www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid
=4965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President's budget also proposes to abandon the 
longstanding goal of expanding the naval battle fleet to 313 
ships. Instead, the President's budget would result in a 
persistently smaller fleet than at any time since the Second 
World War. While U.S. naval forces unquestionably have 
tremendous capabilities, any battle group can only be in one 
place at one time. This reality is why, despite the purported 
``pivot'' to Asia, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral 
Jonathan Greenert, has said that there will not be any increase 
in the naval presence in the region.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Sandra Jontz, ``Greenert reviews Navy's upcoming changes with 
Naples sailors,'' Stars and Stripes, February 23, 2012. http://
www.stripes.com/mobile/news/greenert-reviews-navy-s-upcoming-changes-
with-naples-sailors-1.169556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By providing for real budget growth in future years, this 
budget resolution ensures that the men and women of the armed 
forces will have the resources needed to procure the equipment 
and capabilities that will be essential to protecting American 
interests abroad.
    High priorities include ensuring adequate funding for the 
modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons, forces, and supporting 
infrastructure in accord with the President's commitments made 
at the time of the ratification of the New START treaty; and 
restoring needed funding to the shipbuilding and naval aircraft 
accounts to ensure the full potency of U.S. carrier strike 
groups.
    Reject cost-shifting. The President's budget request 
assumes over $42 billion in savings over the next five years 
from restructuring several major procurement programs. What the 
President's budget doesn't say is that most of those 
``savings'' are merely shifted into the second five years of 
the budget window when the only means of actually achieving 
them will be additional draconian cuts in military end-strength 
and compensation. This budget rejects this shell game, which 
would otherwise result in the delayed fielding of needed 
military capabilities; increased costs for major procurement 
programs; and an unwise and precipitous reduction in the size 
of the armed forces.
    Air National Guard. The Air National Guard remains a 
critical component of our national air defense system. This 
budget recognizes the relative cost-effectiveness of the Air 
Guard, which currently provides 35 percent of the U.S. Air 
Force's capability for 6 percent of the budget. Forty-nine (49) 
of our nation's governors have called on the U.S. Air Force to 
reconsider its fiscal year 2013 budget request wherein the Air 
National Guard absorbs 59 percent of the total aircraft budget 
reductions and nearly six times the per capita personnel 
reductions. The Committee takes a continuing interest in 
ensuring that precipitous defense spending reductions do not 
jeopardize the nation's security.
                  FUNCTION 150: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

                              ----------                              --
--------


                            Function Summary

    The foreign affairs budget plays a critical role in 
advancing American interests abroad, including national 
security. This budget includes programs pertaining to 
international development 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 include the 
Departments of Agriculture, State, Treasury, the United States 
Agency for International Development [USAID], and the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC].
    Over the past 10 years, Function 150 funding has more than 
doubled, increasing by 135 percent. This budget reflects a 
thorough re-evaluation of accounts in Function 150 and 
prioritizes programs that are both integral to the core budget 
and that achieve desired results in an efficient manner. U.S. 
interests are best achieved when these goals are met, and 
taxpayer dollars should only be used to fund programs that are 
effective. This budget assumes continued funding only for those 
programs critical to advancing U.S. interests abroad.
    Funding for the State Department and USAID's non-enduring 
civilian activities in the frontline states of the global war 
on terrorism is reflected in Function 970 rather than in this 
account.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    For fiscal year 2013, the resolution proposes $43.128 
billion in total budget authority (including mandatory and 
discretionary spending) and $46.999 billion in outlays. For 
fiscal year 2013, Function 150 discretionary spending, which 
accounts for the vast majority of the budget, is $40.905 
billion in budget authority and $47.522 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending for 2013 is $2.223 billion in budget 
authority and -$523 million in outlays. (The negative outlay 
figure reflects receipts from foreign military sales and 
foreign military financing transactions.) Over 10 years, budget 
authority totals $421.981 billion, with outlays of $462.974 
billion.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    While final policy and funding decisions will ultimately be 
made by the committees of jurisdiction, the following policies 
are recommendations for these committees on how to meet the 
proposed budget targets.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Consolidate USAID's Development Assistance [DA] with MCC. 
The United States has two primary foreign development 
assistance programs: USAID's Development Assistance program and 
the Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC]. Investing in 
foreign aid and helping other nations rise towards prosperity 
keeps the United States safe and strengthens the economy by 
establishing new trading partners and markets. However, 
development assistance is only worthwhile if it produces 
results for aid recipients.
    America's experience with having two development assistance 
programs has shown that MCC's model better reflects this 
principle when compared to DA. MCC's emphasis on outputs rather 
than inputs needs to be the foundation of all U.S. foreign 
assistance programs. Other elements of MCC's model that should 
be extended throughout U.S. development assistance programs 
include:
          
 strict requirements on recipient countries 
        to prove strong commitments to good governance, 
        economic freedom, and investment in their citizens in 
        order to be considered for aid;
          
 willingness of the U.S. Government to 
        terminate assistance if an aid recipient starts 
        slipping on these critical commitments;
          
 country ownership, which requires the 
        country to plan its own aid project and lead 
        implementation; and
          
 strict timelines for aid projects.
    These principles are critical to ensuring the long-term 
sustainability of projects once U.S. assistance concludes, thus 
avoiding creating a culture of dependency on U.S. aid. USAID 
claims to be moving toward adoption of more accountable policy 
standards, country ownership, and timetables, but success 
remains elusive. MCC's model is more effective and efficient in 
delivering foreign aid and results in the most benefits for the 
taxpayer dollar. For these reasons, this budget proposes MCC to 
be the lead agency on foreign development assistance.
    Eliminate Complex Crises Fund [CCF]. Established in 2010 to 
support stabilization activities and conflict prevention in 
countries demonstrating high risks of insecurity, the CCF has 
never been authorized by the committee of jurisdiction and is 
duplicative of the missions performed by the recently re-
organized Bureau of Conflict Stabilizations at the State 
Department. The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations 
is similarly responsible for developing a civilian capacity to 
prevent and counter crises in nations where security issues are 
of high concern. Due to mission overlap, eliminating the CCF 
and allowing the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization 
Operations to lead conflict prevention efforts is recommended. 
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs makes the same 
recommendation in its Views and Estimates letter for fiscal 
year 2013.
    Eliminate Funding for Peripheral Foreign Affairs 
Institutions. The U.S. funds multiple independent agencies and 
quasi-private institutions through the foreign affairs budget. 
Included in this list are the Inter-American Foundation, the 
African Development Foundation, the East-West Center, the Asia 
Foundation, and the Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue. 
These institutions all engage in programming that is redundant 
of the State Department and USAID activities. Consolidating and 
eliminating funding for multiple institutions that perform 
similar tasks will make U.S. engagement with the world more 
efficient and cost-effective. Further, some of these 
organizations already receive private funding, and could 
continue on with non-government funds.
    Reduce Funding for Broadcasting Board of Governors. The 
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) manages all U.S. civilian 
international broadcasting and helps connect people around the 
world in support of democracy. While the goals of the BBG are 
laudable, its budget has increased by almost 40 percent over 
the past decade and some of these programs are proving to be 
less effective than intended. Further, although the Cold War 
ended over 20 years ago, the BBG still provides broadcasting 
services to 10 Eastern European countries. Given the fiscal 
situation of the U.S. Government, the time has come to 
reevaluate the usefulness of some of these services and to 
reduce funding accordingly.
    Reduce Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs. The 
purpose of educational and cultural exchange programs is to 
encourage mutual understanding between Americans and citizens 
around the world through scholarship and leadership programs. 
While this mission is laudable, exchange programs are not an 
essential component of the foreign affairs budget. Over the 
past five years, funding for these programs has increased by 24 
percent. The administration has requested less funding for 
these activities relative to last year's spending levels. This 
budget reflects the priority accorded these activities.
    Eliminate Contributions to Clean Technology Fund and 
Strategic Climate Fund. The Clean Technology and Strategic 
Climate Funds both support energy-efficient technologies 
intended to reduce energy use and avert climate change. Both of 
these funds were created by the Obama administration in fiscal 
year 2010. At a time when fiscal restraint is necessary, 
expanding U.S. international assistance into new areas is not 
financially wise. Further, as discussed elsewhere in this 
budget (see Function 250), the U.S. track record with energy-
related research and development is poor. This budget 
recommends the elimination of both programs, reserving U.S. 
foreign assistance for core foreign policy interests.
    Reduce Contributions to International Organizations and 
Programs. The United States voluntarily contributes to several 
multilateral organizations and programs to promote U.S. 
interests and achieve transnational goals. These contributions 
are duplicative of funding provided in the Contribution to 
International Organizations [CIO] account, which includes 
obligatory payments to international organizations with which 
the United States has signed treaties. While this budget fully 
funds the CIO account, it does not support voluntary 
contributions to the duplicative International Organizations 
and Programs account.
    Eliminate Feed the Future. Initiated by the Obama 
administration in 2009, Feed the Future aims to end global food 
insecurity through investments in nutrition and agriculture 
abroad. While addressing the issues of poverty and malnutrition 
around the globe is important, the U.S. Government's fiscal 
condition does not permit the expansion of U.S. foreign 
assistance initiatives, especially ones that overlap with 
existing programs. The United States currently has two other 
major food aid programs: Food for Peace (the primary food aid 
account) and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition Program. Both of these aid programs address 
global food insecurity in the world's poorest countries, 
including through agricultural development efforts. This budget 
reflects a need to consolidate our food aid programs in order 
to eliminate associated costs with mission redundancy.
    Reduce funding for USAID's International Disaster 
Assistance. The International Disaster Assistance [IDA] account 
prepares for and mitigates emergencies overseas by providing 
humanitarian assistance to individuals affected by disasters 
and conflict. While America has always been the first to assist 
countries experiencing catastrophe, its resources are limited 
and funding levels need to reflect this reality. The 
President's request for IDA, $960 million, is an 83 percent 
increase from spending levels five years ago. This dramatic 
increase in spending is not representative of the 10-year 
spending average on international disasters, which is $590 
million, nor the 20-year average, $380 million. It is time to 
reassess funding for the IDA account and adjust funding levels 
to be more reflective of historical disaster trends.
          FUNCTION 250: GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The largest component of this function--about half of total 
spending--is for the space flight, research, and supporting 
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
[NASA]. The function also contains general science funding, 
including the budgets for the National Science Foundation [NSF] 
and the Department of Energy [DOE] Office of Science.
    Spending for this function has grown by about 9 percent 
since President Obama took office.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $28 billion in budget authority 
and $29.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Nearly all 
the spending in the function is discretionary, which totals 
$27.9 billion in 2013 budget authority, and $29.1 billion in 
outlays. Mandatory budget authority in 2013 is $100 million, 
with $116 million in related outlays. The 10-year totals for 
budget authority and outlays are $302.6 billion and $301.7 
billion, respectively.
    The budget reduces excess and unnecessary spending, while 
supporting core government responsibilities. The resolution 
preserves basic research, providing stable funding for NSF to 
conduct its authorized activities in science, space and 
technology basic research, development and STEM education. The 
budget supports the fiscal year 2013 requested level for NASA 
and recognizes the vital strategic importance of the United 
States remaining the pre-eminent space-faring nation. In the 
President's request, the administration again shifted 
priorities away from the 2010 NASA authorization, allocating 
$830 billion to commercial cargo and crew initiatives. This 
budget realigns funding in accordance with the NASA 
authorization and its specified spending limits to support 
robust space capability, allow for exploration beyond low Earth 
orbit, and support our aerospace workforce and scientific as 
well as educational base. While the Committee recommendation is 
a disciplined budget that will require committees of 
jurisdiction and agencies to set priorities and achieve 
efficiencies, it does not take the arbitrary approach that will 
result from the Budget Control Act's sequester. The House 
Republican budget replaces the sequester. If not replaced, 
based on staff estimates, this function would be reduced by 
another $2.0 billion below the committee recommendation in 
fiscal year 2013.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

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

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This category includes civilian energy and environmental 
programs of the Department of Energy [DOE]. Function 270 also 
includes the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of 
Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA], the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. (It does not include DOE's national security 
activities--the National Nuclear Security Administration--which 
are in Function 050, or its basic research and science 
activities, which are in Function 250.)
    Since the start of the current administration, total 
outlays in Function 270 have increased by almost 390 percent. 
The President has installed a heavy-handed compliance culture 
dependent on regulations and spending on administration-favored 
constituencies. Regulations have cost people and small 
businesses some $1.75 trillion per year, according to a report 
from the Small Business Administration, including $281 billion 
for environmental regulations that disproportionately hit small 
businesses.\4\ The President has also stifled domestic energy 
production by blocking or delaying production both onshore and 
offshore, destroying jobs and idling American energy sources. 
As the administration took action to stifle private-sector 
development of domestic energy resources, it dramatically 
increased funding for favored energy sectors. The stimulus 
alone allocated $80 billion of taxpayers' dollars specifically 
for politically favored renewable-energy interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of Regulatory 
Costs on Small Firms,'' Small Business Research Survey, September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The results are plain to see: gasoline prices have more 
than doubled since the President took office and the 
administration has only created additional barriers for needed 
capital investment and job creation.
    Burdensome and ineffective regulations have driven up the 
prices of many products and services. For example: In executing 
a previously enacted ban on traditional incandescent light 
bulbs, the current administration tried to promote a ``green'' 
replacement bulb by holding a contest. The ``winning'' bulb 
costs $50--a 4,900 percent increase over the price of a 
traditional incandescent bulb. This policy will now have 
taxpayers paying twice--once by providing $10 million in prize 
money for this contest, and again in the form of more expensive 
light bulbs.
    All this for little gain. According to a 2011 Congressional 
Research Service report, ``The potential for job creation has 
become a key factor in evaluating renewable energy investment 
incentives and programs, [yet] quantifying and measuring green 
job creation and growth has been difficult.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Phillip Brown and Molly Sherlock, ``ARRA Section 1603 Grants in 
Lieu of Tax Credits for Renewable Energy: Overview, Analysis and Policy 
Options,'' Congressional Research Service, March 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $2 billion in budget authority and 
$8.4 billion in outlays in discretionary spending in fiscal 
year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is -$5 billion in budget 
authority and $983 million in outlays. The negative balances 
reflect the incoming repayment of loans, receipts from the sale 
of electricity produced by Federal entities, and charges for 
the disposal of nuclear waste, which are accounted for as 
``negative spending.'' The 10-year totals for budget authority 
and outlays are $21.7 billion and $45.1 billion, respectively, 
for discretionary spending. The 10-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are -$15.4 billion and -$14.8 billion, 
respectively, for mandatory spending. The large disparity 
between budget authority and outlays results mainly from a 
large infusion of stimulus funds that are still being expended 
nearly four years later. The function grew almost four-fold 
since the start of the Obama administration because of Recovery 
Act funding. Over the course of the decade, outlays return to 
more normal ranges.
    The resolution reduces funding for non-core energy 
research, loan guarantees for lower-demand programs, and excess 
and unnecessary spending in the DOE's civilian accounts, which 
received large funding levels in the stimulus bill.

                      Illustrative 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.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Reduce Administrative Costs at DOE. The resolution supports 
streamlining and boosting accountability of vendor support and 
administrative costs across DOE's offices. The Government 
Accountability Office described the vendor selection and 
procurement process as decentralized and fragmented in the 
agency. This budget supports better governance and 
consolidation of contract management and procurement processes 
across functions to reduce costs.
    Scale Back Corporate Subsidies in the Energy Industry. The 
resolution provides sufficient funding for essential government 
missions, including energy security and basic research and 
development. It recommends paring back spending in areas of 
duplication and non-core functions, such as applied and 
commercial research and development projects best left to the 
private sector. For example, renewable projects have received 
substantial subsidies. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, on a dollar-per-unit-of-production basis, the 
level of subsidies received by the wind and solar industries 
were almost 100 times greater than those for conventional 
energy. This does not include the $27.2 billion allocated in 
the 2009 ``stimulus'' bill for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy research and investment. In addition, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office [CBO], provisions to benefit energy 
efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent of the 
budgetary cost of Federal energy-related tax preferences in 
2011. The budget aims to roll back such Federal intervention 
and corporate welfare spending across energy sectors.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Rescind Unobligated Balances in DOE's Green Subsidies and 
Loan Portfolio. The budget recommends rescinding unobligated 
balances in DOE's loan portfolio. Since its introduction in the 
2009 stimulus bill, DOE has issued over $20 billion in new 
loans and loan guarantees for private-sector loans for 
renewable energy projects that would not otherwise have been 
market-viable. Already, multi-million dollar projects that were 
labeled as successes have failed.
    The first renewable energy loan guarantee recipient, solar 
start-up Solyndra, received a loan guarantee for $535 million 
in the fall of 2009, even after repeated warnings from career 
Federal financial analysts. In the spring of 2010, it failed to 
complete its initial public offering after an independent audit 
questioned the ongoing viability of the firm. Then, in the fall 
of 2010, the firm closed one of its manufacturing facilities 
and laid off 180 workers. Finally, the firm declared bankruptcy 
and laid off 1,100 employees only 15 months after President 
Obama visited a company factory.
    The Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing program was 
intended to provide debt capital to domestic auto manufacturers 
to fund projects that help vehicles made in the United States 
meet higher mileage requirements. However, the funds have 
largely been unused as production has not met current demand. 
Loan beneficiaries have included manufacturers shifting jobs 
overseas, such as Fisker, which was provided over $500 million 
and ended up assembling cars in Finland.
    Moreover, Americans deserve the most honest, accurate 
assessment of how Washington spends their tax dollars. Yet the 
costs of DOE's loans are currently calculated using the 
inadequate methodology prescribed in the Federal Credit Reform 
Act [FCRA]. Under FCRA rules, government-backed loans are 
discounted at risk-free interest rates--the interest rates on 
U.S. Treasury securities. As CBO has stated and the White 
House's own independent analysis has acknowledged, by 
incorporating market-based risk premiums, fair-value estimates 
recognize the financial risks that the government assumes when 
issuing credit guarantees.
    Repeal Stimulus-Driven Borrowing Authority Specifically for 
Green Transmission. The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in 
the Wester Area Power Administration's [WAPA] Transmission 
Infrastructure Program provides loans to develop new 
transmission systems aimed solely at integrating renewable 
energy. To date, WAPA has announced only one project under the 
borrowing authority: a wind transmission project owned by a 
foreign company. This authority was inserted into the stimulus 
bill without the opportunity for debate. Of most concern, the 
authority includes a bailout provision that would require 
American taxpayers to pay outstanding balances on projects that 
private developers fail to repay.
    Eliminates Oil and Gas Research and Development Program. 
The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other 
Petroleum Research Fund is primarily operated by a private-
sector consortium and duplicates efforts already made by the 
private investors. The resolution supports prioritizing Federal 
funding and preventing Federal investment from crowding out 
private investment across energy sectors.
            FUNCTION 300: NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    Spending on programs contained in the Natural Resources and 
Environment function has increased 20.4 percent since the start 
of the current administration. The budget resolution recognizes 
the importance of these activities--which include overseeing 
water resources, conservation, land management, and 
recreational resources--but bigger government has not equated 
to better government, and the increase in resources has only 
invited mismanagement and duplication.
    The fiscal year 2013 budget resolution builds on last 
year's resolution and supports the Nation's enduring energy 
policy priorities--economic prosperity, lower gasoline and 
energy prices, and greater revenue generation from domestic 
energy production--while moving toward market-based solutions 
for sustainable energy sources. The resolution draws on the 
House Republicans' American Energy Initiative, which seeks to 
advance an all-of-the-above energy approach for the United 
States.
    The administration has blocked and delayed domestic energy 
production both onshore and offshore, costing jobs and 
sidelining American energy sources at a time of rising gasoline 
prices and instability in the Middle East and North Africa. The 
budget resolution provides for a more measured approach, 
allowing for more resources from bonus bids, rents, royalties, 
and fees as a result of unlocking domestic energy supplies in a 
safe, environmentally responsible manner. The budget also 
encourages the development of American-made renewable and 
alternative energy sources, while affirming the position that 
environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually 
exclusive goals.
    In addition, the budget recognizes the importance of 
preserving significant habitats, while properly maintaining 
America's existing public lands. The Federal Government owns 
and controls 650 million acres of land in the United States--
one out of every three acres--especially in areas of the 
western United States. But the government has not adequately 
maintained this land, some of which could return value to 
States and counties through more productive use. The Federal 
Government opts instead to acquire more while neglecting 
maintenance and upkeep of what it already controls. While the 
President's budget almost doubles funding for the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] to acquire more land--from $255 
million in fiscal year 2008 to $450 million in his fiscal year 
2013 budget--Federal lands suffer from a current maintenance 
backlog that measures in the billions of dollars. The 
government has a responsibility to maintain and care for 
existing resources before acquiring more land.
    In addition, the budget acknowledges the importance of 
maintaining our ports and waterways to encourage commercial 
deep-draft navigation and economic competitiveness. In fiscal 
year 2012, a total of $898 million was appropriated from the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF], an increase of $109 
million over the administration's request. However, there 
continues to be a large balance in the fund and outstanding 
harbor maintenance needs.
    The Natural Resources and Environment category consists of 
major departments and agencies such as the Department of the 
Interior, which includes the National Park Service [NPS], the 
Bureau of Land Management [BLM], the Bureau of Reclamation, and 
the Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS]; conservation-oriented and 
land management agencies within the Department of Agriculture 
[USDA] including the Forest Service; the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] in the Department of 
Commerce; the Army Corps of Engineers; and the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA]. The discussion below elaborates on the 
budget resolution's recommended policies in these areas.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $33.3 billion in budget authority 
and $37.9 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2013 totals $30.6 billion, with $35.4 
billion in related outlays; mandatory spending is $2.7 billion 
in budget authority and $2.4 billion in outlays. Over 10 years, 
budget authority totals $331.4 billion, and outlays are $349.3 
billion.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Focus on Maintaining Existing Land Resources. Annual 
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund has typically 
ranged between $250 million and $450 million. The President's 
budget requests $450 million for fiscal year 2013, but this 
allocation cannot be used for maintenance. As noted previously, 
the Federal Government already is struggling with a maintenance 
backlog on the millions of acres it controls--a backlog 
totaling between $13.2 and $19.4 billion--but the 
administration is seeking to acquire even more land. This 
budget focuses on eliminating the maintenance backlog before 
moving to acquire additional lands.
    Streamline Climate Change Activities Across Government. 
This budget resolution reduces spending for government-wide 
climate change-related activities and recommends better 
coordination of programs and funds to eliminate duplicative and 
unnecessary spending.
    Streamline Fragmented and Overlapping Agency Programs. The 
resolution supports consolidating programs across Federal 
agencies and reducing spending in areas identified by the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO], bipartisan deficit 
reduction commissions, and H.R. 1. These programs include 
overlapping diesel emission monitoring programs. GAO identified 
14 fragmented programs at Energy, DOT and EPA whose missions 
cover reducing mobile-source diesel emissions, resulting in 
duplication of efforts and unnecessary funding sometimes going 
to the same recipients. The President's Fiscal Commission also 
identified hundreds of millions of dollars in water treatment 
efforts duplicated across the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA and 
USDA, not pertaining in some cases to these agencies' core 
missions.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Revise and Reauthorize the Bureau of Land Management's Land 
Sales Process. Instead of requiring that all proceeds from land 
sales be used to acquire other parcels of land and to cover 
sales expenses, this option would direct that 70 percent of the 
proceeds, net of expenses, go to the Treasury for the purposes 
of deficit reduction by reauthorizing and revising the Federal 
Land Transaction Facilitation Act and other land management 
statutes. It would limit the Department of the Interior's share 
of the receipts to $60 million per year (plus an additional 
amount to cover BLM's administrative costs) for land 
acquisition and restoration projects on BLM lands. The option 
would also reduce the amount of Federal spending not subject to 
regular oversight through the congressional appropriation 
process. The change would reduce the Federal budget deficit and 
ensure that U.S. taxpayers benefit directly from land sales.
    Stop Mine Cleanup Payments to States with Certified 
Reclaimed Mines. The Federal Government collects fees from coal 
mining companies to restore abandoned mining sites. Money from 
those fees is paid to States to restore abandoned mines within 
their state. However, several States have successfully restored 
all of their abandoned mining sites but are still permitted to 
use the federal mine cleanup payments. Effectively, for the 
States that have been ``certified'' as having successfully 
restored critical mining sites, the mine payments serve as an 
unrestricted Federal subsidy. Several tribal governments also 
receive payments despite having already remediated all 
contaminated mining sites on their land. The administration has 
proposed terminating these mine reclamation payments to States 
that no longer use them for their intended purpose, and this 
budget proposes terminating them as well.
                       FUNCTION 350: AGRICULTURE

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The agriculture function includes funds for direct 
assistance and loans to food and fiber producers; export 
assistance; market information; inspection services; and 
agricultural research. Farm policy is driven by the Food, 
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Bill), which 
provides farmers protection against uncertainties, such as poor 
weather conditions and unfavorable market conditions.
    Farm safety net programs are divided into three areas: 
commodity programs, crop insurance, and supplemental disaster 
assistance. Commodity programs, which the Farm Bill authorizes 
through the 2012 crop/marketing year, include both direct 
payments and price-based counter-cyclical payments; the 
marketing assistance loan program; and the average crop revenue 
election payment program. Due to recent strength in 
agricultural markets, outlays for price-based programs have 
declined. Nevertheless, direct payments, which do not vary with 
market prices, have remained steady at $5 billion each year. 
Crop insurance outlays, while volatile, have trended sharply 
higher and averaged $5.6 billion over 2008-10, more than double 
their 2000-02 average level.
    With farm income, crop prices, and Federal deficits hitting 
new highs, and with food prices going up, it is time to reform 
agricultural support programs, while maintaining a strong 
safety net for farmers.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $21.7 billion in budget authority 
and $24.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary 
spending in fiscal year 2013 is $5.9 billion in budget 
authority and $5.8 billion in outlays; mandatory spending, the 
majority of the function's total, is $15.8 billion in budget 
authority, with outlays of $18.8 billion. The 10-year totals 
for budget authority and outlays are $197.3 billion and $198.2 
billion, respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Reform Agricultural Commodity and Insurance Programs. Under 
this option, mandatory agricultural outlays, other than food 
and nutrition programs, will be reduced by $29.3 billion 
relative to the currently anticipated levels from fiscal year 
2013 through fiscal year 2022. These savings could be achieved 
by reducing both direct payments and crop insurance subsidies, 
and by reforming export assistance programs. The Committee on 
Agriculture is responsible for implementing these reductions, 
and to maintain the committee's flexibility, this option 
assumes the savings will not take effect until the beginning of 
the next Farm Bill. Farmers will benefit greatly from other 
provisions in this budget, including regulatory relief, the 
maintenance of low capital gains and estate taxes, and lower 
interest rates due to reduced Federal borrowing.
               FUNCTION 370: COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

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

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    In this function, the budget resolution provides for -$7.9 
billion in budget authority and -$3.9 billion in outlays in 
fiscal year 2013. Of that total, 2013 discretionary spending is 
-$7.8 billion in budget authority and -$6.1 billion in outlays. 
Mandatory spending in 2013 is -$0.1 billion in budget authority 
and $2.1 billion in outlays. The function totals over 10 years 
are $22.2 billion in budget authority and -$125.9 billion in 
outlays.
    On-budget totals for fiscal year 2013 are -$7.1 billion in 
budget authority and -$3.2 billion in outlays. Of these 
amounts, discretionary budget authority is -$1.1 billion, with 
outlays of -$1.1 billion as well. Mandatory on-budget spending 
for fiscal year 2013 is $0.9 billion in budget authority and 
$3.2 billion in outlays. Over 10 years, the on-budget totals 
are $45.3 billion in budget authority and -$102.9 billion in 
outlays.
    Negative discretionary totals for budget authority and 
outlays mainly reflect the negative subsidy rates applied to 
certain loan and loan guarantee programs scored under the 
guidelines of the Federal Credit Reform Act [FCRA], such as FHA 
and Ginnie Mae programs. It should be noted that FHA loans are 
scored using a different accounting method than the fair-value 
estimates that CBO applies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
resulting in budget disparities (see discussion under Mandatory 
Spending).
    Negative mandatory totals for outlays in this function 
mainly result from the wind-down of several programs created in 
response to the financial crisis that initially produced large 
positive outlays, such as those associated with the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program [TARP] and various deposit insurance 
programs. It should be noted that from 2008 through 2009, total 
outlays in Function 370 were a positive $319 billion.
    Off-budget totals for fiscal year 2013 are -$0.8 billion in 
budget authority and -$0.8 billion in outlays. Of these 
amounts, discretionary budget authority is $0.26 billion in 
budget authority and $0.26 in outlays. Over 10 years, the 
discretionary off-budget totals are $3.1 billion in budget 
authority and $3.1 billion in outlays. Mandatory off-budget 
spending for fiscal year 2013 is -$1.1 billion in budget 
authority and -$1.1 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the 
mandatory off-budget totals are -$26.1 billion in budget 
authority and -$26.1 billion in outlays. The negative totals 
for budget authority and outlays in the off-budget portion of 
this function represent savings from our two policy proposals 
described below in addition to monies received by the Treasury 
from the U.S. Postal Service Public Enterprise Fund.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Eliminate Corporate Welfare Within the Department of 
Commerce. Business subsidies distort the economy, impose unfair 
burdens on taxpayers, and are especially problematic given the 
fiscal problems facing the U.S. Government. With potential 
savings of roughly $6.9 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 that are largely available in the 
private market. The program already obtains two-thirds of its 
funding from non-Federal sources, and was originally intended 
to be self-supporting.
    
 Trade Promotion Activities at the International 
Trade Administration [ITA]. This agency, within the Department 
of Commerce, provides trade promotion services for U.S. 
companies. The fees it charges for these services do not cover 
the cost of these activities. Businesses can obtain similar 
services from State and local governments and the private 
market. The ITA should be eliminated or charge for the full 
cost of these services.
    Tighten the Belts of Government Agencies. Duplication, 
hidden subsidies, and large bureaucracies are symptomatic of 
many agencies within Function 370. Among them are the 
following:
    
 The General Services Administration's [GSA] 
Federal Citizen Services Fund. This fund is the e-mail, print, 
and telephone information service of the GSA, managing websites 
for the general public such as USA.gov. Many of its 
responsibilities, however, duplicate those of other offices 
within the GSA, including the Electronic Government Fund. In 
light of cutbacks in various government agencies, this 
resolution supports rationalizing the GSA wherever possible. As 
an agency whose mission is to provide services to other parts 
of the government, the GSA stretches across many budget 
functions: It has 6,900 full-time employees; owns or leases 
about 9,600 buildings and related assets; and has a budget of 
more than $960 million, an increase of 220 percent since 2008.
    
 The Small Business Administration [SBA]. The SBA 
provides almost $60 million in grants, hidden in its 
discretionary salaries and expenses budget, which could be 
canceled.
    
 The Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]. In 
2011, the SEC spent more than $1.2 billion on salaries and 
expenses, with $760 million going to compensation and benefits 
alone. More than 3,800 full-time employees occupied the SEC at 
the end of 2011, with an average compensation and benefits 
package of about $198,000 per employee. The SEC's budget has 
swollen by 34 percent since 2008. The President's budget 
requests $1.6 billion in 2013, an increase of 73 percent from 
2008 levels. On top of this, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act [Dodd-Frank] requests doubling the 
size of the SECs budget from current levels, increasing it to 
$2.25 billion in fiscal year 2015.
    In its 2013 Views and Estimates, the House Committee on 
Financial Services notes the regulatory failures of the SEC 
leading up to the financial crisis:

          In the run-up to the financial crisis, the SEC 
        repeatedly failed to fulfill any part of its mission: 
        the SEC failed to adequately supervise the Nation's 
        largest investment banks, which resulted in the bailout 
        of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers and 
        the ensuing financial panic; the SEC failed to 
        supervise the credit rating agencies that bestowed AAA 
        ratings on securities that later proved to be no better 
        than junk; and the SEC failed to ensure that issuers 
        made adequate disclosures to investors about securities 
        cobbled together from poorly underwritten mortgages 
        that were bound to fail. Apart from these failures, the 
        SEC's inability to detect the Madoff and Stanford Ponzi 
        schemes cast further doubt on its ability to protect 
        investors.

    The Government Accountability Office [GAO] issued a report 
in 2010 in which it identified material weaknesses in the SEC's 
controls. It demonstrated deficiencies in the SEC's reporting 
of financials, budgetary resources, and other internal 
controls.
    While the administration requests expanding the SEC's 
budget, this resolution questions the premise that more funding 
for the SEC means better, smarter regulation. It denies the 
claim that adding reams of regulations to the books and scores 
of regulators to the payrolls will provide greater 
transparency, consumer protection, and enforcement for 
increasingly complex markets. At a time when trimming the 
deficit is imperative, the SEC should create headroom in its 
budget by streamlining and making more efficient its operations 
and resources; defraying taxpayer expenses by designating self-
regulatory organizations (subject to SEC oversight) to perform 
needed examinations of investment advisors; and enhancing 
collaboration with other agencies, such as the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, to reduce duplication, waste, and 
overlap in supervision. Ultimately, the committees of 
jurisdiction will establish the specific policies.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Terminate Grants to Worsted Wool Manufacturers and Payments 
to Wool Manufacturers. The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical 
Corrections Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429) established the 
Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund. This fund authorizes the 
Department of Commerce to provide grants to certain 
manufacturers of worsted wool products to ease adjustment to 
changes in trade law. The grants, originally slated to end in 
2007, still exist and have been extended until 2014. 
Termination of this temporary grant program is overdue. This 
Act also directs Customs to make payments to wool manufacturers 
from certain duties collected to provide import tax relief. 
This account has been extended twice through amendments and has 
also outlived its original purpose.
    Terminate Corporation for Travel Promotion. In 2010, the 
Congress established a new annual payment to the travel 
industry and created a new government agency, the Corporation 
for Travel Promotion (now called Brand USA), to conduct 
advertising campaigns encouraging foreign travelers to visit 
the United States. This budget recommends ending these 
subsidies and eliminating the new agency because it is not a 
core responsibility of the Federal Government to pay for and 
conduct advertising campaigns for a certain industry. Moreover, 
the travel industry can and should pay for the advertising that 
it benefits from.
    Restrict New FDIC Authority to Bail Out Bank Creditors. 
This budget proposes to preempt the cycle of future bailouts 
set in motion by Dodd-Frank.
    This financial regulatory overhaul is not reform. It 
expands and centralizes power in Washington, doubling down on 
the root causes of the 2008 crisis. It contains layer upon 
layer of new bureaucracy sewn together by complex regulations, 
yet it fails to address key problems, such as Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac, that contributed to the worst financial meltdown 
in recent history. Although the bill is dubbed ``Wall Street 
Reform,'' it actually intensifies the problem of too-big-to-
fail by giving large, interconnected financial institutions 
advantages that small firms will not enjoy.
    While the proponents of Dodd-Frank went to great lengths to 
denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them. The Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] now has the authority to 
access taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of 
large, ``systemically significant'' financial institutions. CBO 
estimates the cost for this new authority at $26 billion, 
although CBO Director Elmendorf has testified that ``the cost 
of the program will depend on future economic and financial 
events that are inherently unpredictable.'' In other words, 
another large-scale financial crisis in which creditors are 
guaranteed government bailouts could cost much, much more.
    This resolution calls for ending this regime, now enshrined 
into law, which paves the way for future bailouts. House 
Republicans put forth an enhanced bankruptcy alternative that--
instead of rewarding corporate failure with taxpayer dollars--
would place the responsibility of large, failing firms in the 
hands of the shareholders who own them, the managers who run 
them, and the creditors who finance them.
    This resolution also supports cancelling the ability of the 
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (created by Dodd-Frank) 
to fund its operations by spending from the Federal Reserve's 
yearly remittances to the Treasury Department. The bill was 
written to provide off-budget financing for the new Bureau, 
which will be housed at the Federal Reserve but have complete 
autonomy from the Fed. To preserve its independence as the 
Nation's monetary authority, the Federal Reserve is off-budget 
and its excess earnings from monetary operations are returned 
to the Treasury to reduce the deficit. Now, instead of 
directing these remittances to reduce the deficit, Dodd-Frank 
requires diverting a portion of them to pay for a new 
bureaucracy with the authority to write far-reaching rules on 
financial products and restrict credit to the very customers it 
seeks to ``protect.''
    Privatize the Business of Government-Controlled Mortgage 
Giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since being placed into 
government conservatorship in 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
absent major reforms, are expected to have an all-in cost to 
taxpayers of more than $335 billion through 2022, according to 
CBO estimates. This includes losses on preexisting 
commitments--those entered into prior to conservatorship--of 
about $248 billion. CBO has recorded Fannie and Freddie as 
explicit financial components of the Federal budget, accounting 
for their liabilities as liabilities of the government. In 
contrast, the administration does not fully account for 
taxpayer exposure to Fannie and Freddie and leaves them off 
budget instead.
    So far, Treasury has bailed out Fannie and Freddie to the 
tune of $180 billion. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA now 
dominate 97 percent of the market for the issuance of new 
mortgage-backed securities.
    This budget recommends putting an end to corporate 
subsidies and taxpayer bailouts in housing finance. It 
envisions the eventual elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, winding down their government guarantee and ending 
taxpayer subsidies. In the interim, it supports removing 
distortions to allow an influx of private capital and advancing 
various measures that would bring transparency and 
accountability to these two government-sponsored enterprises.
    Reform the Credit Reform Act to Incorporate Fair-Value 
Accounting Principles. As the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie 
continue, another bailout to a housing giant looms. The market 
share of the FHA has exploded in recent years, crowding out 
private sector investment by 70 percent since 2007. 
Accompanying this rise in market share has been a reduction in 
the capital ratio of the FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance [MMI] 
Fund to levels far below the Fund's congressionally-mandated 
ratio of 2 percent. Should the capital ratio fall below zero, 
yet another taxpayer bailout of a housing finance giant will be 
automatically triggered.
    Given the precarious financial position of the FHA, the 
government should adopt measures to discourage shifting of 
taxpayer risk to the FHA and other government-backed entities 
as Fannie and Freddie are wound down. Right now, there are 
notable differences between the accounting treatment of FHA-
insured loans and Fannie- and Freddie-guaranteed loans.
    FHA's MMI loans are scored according to the Federal Credit 
Reform Act of 1990, which determines budgetary cost by 
calculating the net present value of the cash flows associated 
with loans and discounting those flows using risk-free 
marketable Treasury security rates. By contrast, CBO uses fair-
value scoring for Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-guaranteed loans. 
Fair-value scoring recognizes that adverse economic events such 
as market downturns can cause loan defaults to rise, thus it 
reflects the full financial risk incurred by the taxpayer of 
backing these loans.
    In other words, the current budgetary treatment of FHA 
loans understates the full costs associated with them, thus it 
encourages policymakers to shift risk from Fannie and Freddie 
to FHA.
    This resolution authorizes the use of fair-value scoring 
for Federal credit programs. Without it, the full risk of FHA 
loans--effectively borne by taxpayers--cannot be properly 
accounted for in the budget.
    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 
on the budget. The housing-finance system of the future, 
however, will allow private-market secondary lenders to fairly, 
freely, and transparently compete, with the knowledge that they 
will ultimately bear appropriate risk for the loans they 
guarantee. Their viability will be determined by the soundness 
of their practices and the value of their services.

                     OFF-BUDGET MANDATORY SPENDING

    Reform the Postal Service. The United States Postal Service 
[USPS] is unable to meet its financial obligations and in 
desperate need of structural reforms. The budget recommends 
giving the Postal Service the flexibility that any business 
needs to respond to changing market conditions, including 
declining mail volume, which is down more than 20 percent since 
2006.
    This budget also recognizes the need to reform compensation 
of postal employees. The House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee reported legislation, the Postal Reform Act of 2011, 
which recommends lowering the Postal Service's share of 
employee health and life insurance premiums. Currently, USPS 
pays 79 percent of the health insurance premiums and 100 
percent of the life insurance premiums for the majority of its 
employees. As a result, these employees are paying a smaller 
share of the costs of their health and life insurance premiums 
than other Federal employees. The Postal Reform Act reforms 
compensation by requiring that USPS employees contribute at 
least as much as other Federal employees to their health and 
life insurance premiums.
    Taken together, these reforms could potentially allow the 
Postal Service to save $25.7 billion over 10 years and help 
restore it to solvency.
                      FUNCTION 400: TRANSPORTATION

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    Transportation infrastructure is a vital component of the 
U.S. economy, but the funding mechanisms for Federal highway 
and transit spending have become distorted, leading to 
imprudent, irresponsible, and sometimes downright wasteful 
spending. Further, however worthy some transportation projects 
might be, their capacity as job creators has been vastly 
oversold, as demonstrated by the extravagant but unfulfilled 
promises that accompanied the 2009 ``stimulus'' bill. Spending 
in the function has increased over 30 percent since the start 
of the administration.
    This budget category includes ground, air, water and other 
transportation funding. The major agencies and programs here 
include the Department of Transportation (including the Federal 
Aviation Administration [FAA]; the Federal Highway 
Administration; the Federal Transit Administration; highway, 
motor carrier, rail and pipeline safety programs; and the 
Maritime Administration); the Department of Homeland Security 
(including the Federal Air Marshals, the Transportation 
Security Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard); the 
aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration [NASA]; and the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation [Amtrak].

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $57.1 billion in budget authority 
and $49.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2013 is $30.2 billion, with outlays of 
$47.9 billion; and mandatory spending is $26.9 billion in 
budget authority and $1.9 billion in outlays. The large 
discrepancies between budget authority and outlays here results 
from the split treatment of the transportation trust funds, 
such as the Highway Trust Fund, through which funding is 
provided as a type of mandatory budget authority; and outlays, 
which are controlled by annual limitations on obligations set 
in appropriations acts. Over 10 years, budget authority totals 
$787.7 billion, with outlays of $789 billion.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The budget supports maintaining essential funding for 
highways, aviation and safety, offset by reductions in other 
transportation activities of lower priority to the Federal 
Government. As is true elsewhere, actual policy decisions will 
be determined by the committees of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, 
the options below suggest one set of policies that can help 
meet the budget's levels.

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Eliminate Funding for High-Speed Rail. High-speed rail 
projects and any new intercity rail projects should be pursued 
only if they can be established as self-supporting commercial 
services. The threat of large, endless subsidies is precisely 
the reason governors across the country are rejecting federally 
funded high-speed rail projects. There are only two high-speed 
rail lines in the world that break even: one in Europe and one 
in Japan. Both are in areas that have unusually high population 
densities and extremely high gasoline prices.
    Terminate and reform spending on ineffective, wasteful 
subsidies and underperforming programs. The budget includes 
reductions for terminating the New Starts and Small Starts 
programs within the Department of Transportation. The benefits 
of these mass transit projects are local, not national. They 
should be funded at the local level. The budget supports 
continued reforms for Amtrak--including requiring overtime 
limits for Amtrak employees--and reductions in headquarters and 
administrative costs for agencies.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Avert the Bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund. The budget 
recognizes that the Highway Trust Fund is projected by CBO to 
go bankrupt in the spring of 2013. By current law and practice, 
the Department of Transportation would need to reduce spending 
immediately upon the exhaustion of trust fund balances. 
Congress needs to reform this critically important program to 
put it on a sound financial footing--without further bailouts 
using borrowed money.
    The budget recommends sensible reforms to avert the 
bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund by aligning spending from 
the Trust Fund with incoming gas revenues collected. The budget 
also includes additional provisions to: (1) assume a new 
potential funding stream in the form of oil and gas revenues; 
(2) allow flexibility for a transportation reauthorization so 
long as the legislation does not increase the deficit and is 
fully offset (such an authorization is currently being 
discussed in both the House and the Senate); and (3) plug a 
loophole in the budget that ensures any future general fund 
transfer will be fully offset.
    Simplify the Fee Structure and Help Offset Costs in 
Aviation Security. Taxpayers currently subsidize more than half 
the cost of aviation security for the travelers who use and 
directly benefit from the system. This burden could be eased by 
shifting greater responsibility to these beneficiaries. One way 
to do so would be by applying a simple flat fee of $5 per one-
way trip for security system users, instead of a $2.50 fee for 
a one-way trip with no stops and a $5 fee for a trip with one 
or more stops.
    Reducing Subsidies for Pilot Registration and Licensing 
Fees for the FAA. The FAA regulates the registration of 
aircraft and the licensing and certification of pilots. 
Currently, taxpayers subsidize aircraft owners and operators 
because there is no charge for some of these licenses, while 
others are issued below cost. The costs for these services 
should be borne by those who benefit from them.
    Terminate the Ocean Freight Differential Program for Food 
Aid. Current law requires the Department of Transportation to 
reimburse other Federal agencies for the extra costs the 
agencies pay because of legal requirements that food aid be 
shipped on U.S. ships. The budget exempts food aid from this 
required reimbursement, which needlessly adds to taxpayer cost 
for these humanitarian missions.
                  FUNCTION 450: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL

                              DEVELOPMENT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

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

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $11 billion in budget authority 
and $21.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary 
budget authority in 2013 is $10.9 billion, with $19.9 billion 
in associated outlays. Mandatory spending in 2013 is $120 
million in budget authority and $1.9 billion in outlays. The 
10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $78.3 
billion and $111.2 billion, respectively.
    The large gap between budget authority and outlays in the 
function totals and discretionary levels results mainly from 
the spending out of budget authority provided in the stimulus 
bill.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Eliminate Non-Core Programs. At a time when shrinking 
spending is imperative for the government's fiscal well-being, 
this resolution recommends taking a hard look at community and 
regional programs; focusing on those that deliver funds for 
non-core Federal Government functions; and consolidating and 
streamlining programs wherever possible. Among programs that 
should be considered in this review are the following:
    The Community Development Fund [CDF]. Historically, about 
80 to 90 percent of funding for the CDF is spent on the 
Community Development Block Grant [CDBG]. CDBG is an annual 
formula grant directed to State and local governments to 
address a broad array of initiatives. In 2012, $2.9 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.
    Federal Emergency Management Agency Reforms. The budget 
supports FEMA reforms advocated in the House, including 
improving efficiencies in state and local programs. The budget 
also supports efforts in the FEMA authorization this year to 
incorporate initiatives such as improved cost-estimating and 
efforts to help states and localities use existing resources to 
help communities recover from disasters expeditiously and cost-
effectively.
    The budget also acknowledges the need to look at reforms in 
disaster-relief assistance to ensure that those state and local 
governments most in need are receiving the assistance required. 
The current administration has issued a total of 2,213 disaster 
declarations--66 percent of all FEMA disaster declarations 
since 1953 in the span of three years alone.\6\ According to 
the Government Accountability Office [GAO], this is part of a 
broader trend.\7\ From 2002 to 2011, presidents have declared 
35 percent more disasters than they did during the preceding 
decade. The disaster declaration is intended as a process to 
help state and local governments receive Federal assistance 
when the severity and magnitude of the disaster exceeds state 
and local resources, and when Federal assistance is absolutely 
necessary. When disaster-relief decisions are not made 
judiciously, limited resources are diverted away from 
communities that are truly in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Matt Mayer, ``Congress Should Limit the Presidential Abuse of 
FEMA'', Heritage Foundation, January 2012.
    \7\``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, 
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue,'' 
Government Accountability Office, February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The budget supports GAO recommendations and takes a closer 
look at: (1) reducing Federal expenditures by updating disaster 
declaration eligibility indicators, like per capita thresholds 
and other major disaster metrics, by (for example) adjusting 
for inflation; and (2) providing more scrutiny on cost-share 
levels and waivers. For example, preparedness programs like the 
Emergency Management Performance Grants have shown greater buy-
in by state and local governments; demonstrated better 
performance in delivering resources to first responders; and 
ensured efficient and effective response operations. These 
types of reforms will increase transparency in the way that 
disaster declaration decisions are made and in accurately 
measuring a state's capacity to respond to a disaster.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Reform the National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP]. This 
program, administered by FEMA, provides subsidized and 
unsubsidized flood insurance to the private sector and seeks to 
provide an alternative to disaster assistance by reducing the 
damage done to property by flooding. While collections from 
policyholders should cover the costs associated with flood 
insurance activities, the NFIP owes a debt of $17.8 billion to 
the Treasury, on which it must also pay debt service. Most of 
this debt accumulated during the hurricane season of 2005. 
Currently, 20 percent of NFIP policies are subsidized. On 
average, taking into account subsidized and unsubsidized 
policies under NFIP, premium collections cover only 35 to 40 
percent of the actuarial value of the insurance.
    NFIP, like many other government programs, was designed as 
a temporary incentive for homeowners who were unaware of their 
flood risks (before flood-mapping began in 1975) to purchase 
flood insurance. At present, however, homeowners can receive 
NFIP subsidies for new purchases of existing properties with 
high-flood risk (even though flood mapping occurred decades 
ago), including for second and vacation homes, and for 
properties that realize repeated losses from flood damage. The 
budget supports the House-passed bill, H.R. 1309, to protect 
taxpayers from excessive and unwarranted exposure, implement 
these reforms to strengthen the NFIP's financial position, 
level the playing field for private insurers to enter the 
market, and sustain the Fund's ability to make good on future 
claims.
    Reduce energy subsidies for commercial interests. The 
budget reduces spending for rural green energy loan guarantees. 
These loan guarantees come with Federal mandates that channel 
private investments into financing the administration's 
preferred renewable energy and energy efficiency interests at 
taxpayers' expense.
   FUNCTION 500: EDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIAL SERVICES

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    One of the key drivers of strong economic growth is a well-
trained and educated workforce. As the U.S. economy becomes 
more complex in the face of globalization and technological 
advances, it is vital that workers have the ability to pursue 
effective life-long learning. While Federal spending on the 
Department of Education and related education programs has 
grown significantly over the past few decades, academic 
achievement has not seen a commensurate improvement.
    Now more than ever, the Nation's students must have the 
opportunity to access the high-quality education and skills-
training needed to enable the workforce to compete in the 
rapidly changing global economy. At the same time, Congress 
must make every dollar count by eliminating wasteful, 
duplicative, and ineffective programs. In March 2011, the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office [GAO] identified many areas 
that are ripe for reform. In the area of education, their 
report identified 82 separate programs designed to improve 
teacher quality across 10 Federal agencies, and dozens of 
overlapping job training programs.
    Reforms in these areas are reflected in Function 500, which 
covers Federal spending primarily in the Departments of 
Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services for programs 
that directly provide--or assist States and localities in 
providing--services to young people and adults. Activities 
reflected here provide developmental services to low-income 
children; help fund programs for disadvantaged and other 
elementary and secondary school students; make grants and loans 
to post-secondary students; and fund job-training and 
employment services for people of all ages.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution provides $57.6 billion in budget authority 
and $78.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. In that year, 
discretionary spending is $91.5 billion in budget authority and 
$93.6 billion in outlays; mandatory spending in 2013 is -$33.9 
billion in budget authority and -$15.3 billion in outlays. Over 
10 years, spending in this function totals $771.8 billion in 
budget authority and $799.3 billion in outlays.
    The large gap between budget authority and outlays in the 
function totals and discretionary levels results mainly from 
prior-year outlays from the stimulus bill. The negative 
mandatory numbers are due to the direct lending program, in 
which the Education Department acts effectively as a bank 
making student loans. However, for reasons addressed later in 
this section, these projected future savings are somewhat 
misleading because they fail to account for the market risk of 
the loans.
    While the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget 
that will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to 
set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the 
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control 
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the 
sequester. If not replaced, based on staff estimates, this 
function would be reduced by another $9.0 billion below the 
committee recommendation in fiscal year 2013.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Reform Job Training Programs. Federal job training programs 
are balkanized, difficult to access, and lacking in 
accountability. There are at least 49 job training programs 
spread across nine different agencies. In January 2011, the 
Government Accountability Office [GAO] issued a report that 
found almost all federal employment and training programs 
overlap with at least one other program, providing similar 
services to similar populations. Together, these programs spent 
$18 billion in fiscal year 2009, including stimulus dollars, 
and at least $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2010. Additionally, 
Senator Coburn has presented a report highlighting the high 
amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that occurs in these 
programs.
    All congressional committees with jurisdiction over job 
training programs should look to consolidate as many 
administrative structures as possible to eliminate duplication 
and maximize taxpayer funds by focusing them on the most 
effective means of delivering job training activities. The 
Education and the Workforce Committee, for instance, recently 
introduced legislation to that end.
    This budget improves accountability by calling for the 
consolidation of duplicative federal job-training programs into 
more accountable, targeted career scholarship programs. A 
streamlined approach with increased oversight and 
accountability will not only provide administrative savings, 
but improve access, choice, and flexibility to enable workers 
and job seekers to respond quickly and effectively to whatever 
specific career challenges they face.
    Make the Pell Grant Program Sustainable. Pell Grants are 
the perfect example of promises that cannot be kept. The 
program is on an unsustainable path, a fact acknowledged by the 
President's own fiscal year 2013 budget. The College Cost 
Reduction and Access Act of 2007 [CCRAA], the Higher Education 
Opportunity Act of 2008 [HEOA], the ``stimulus'' bill, and the 
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010 [SAFRA] all 
made Pell Grants more generous than the Federal budget could 
afford. This, along with a dramatic rise in the number of 
eligible students due to the recession, has caused program 
costs to more than double since 2008, from $16.1 billion in 
2008 to an estimated $36.4 billion in fiscal year 2013. 
Moreover, the program is beginning to increasingly rely on 
mandatory funding to solve its discretionary shortfalls. For 
instance, the Department of Education warned in 2012 that 
without changes to reduce program costs, Pell Grants would have 
an ending shortfall of $20.4 billion.
    Instead of making necessary reforms, Congress again 
resorted to short-term funding patches--a temporary answer that 
will not prevent another severe funding cliff for the program 
in the future. The President has increased the maximum Pell 
Grant by more than $900 since 2008, to $5,635 for the 2013-2014 
award year. However, his budget only provides funding for that 
level of award through the 2014-2015 academic year. This 
irresponsible spending serves only to put the program at 
greater risk of ultimately being unable to fulfill its promises 
to students.
    Urgent reforms are necessary to enable the program to 
continue as the foundation of the Nation's commitment to 
helping low-income students gain access to higher education. 
The budget recommends the following:
    
 Roll back certain recent expansions to the needs 
analysis to ensure aid is targeted to the truly needy. The 
Department of Education attributes 14 percent of program growth 
since 2008 to recent legislative expansions to the needs 
analysis formula. The biggest cost drivers come from changes 
made in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 
[CCRAA], such as the expansions of the level at which a student 
qualifies for an automatic zero ``Expected Family 
Contribution'' [EFC] and the income protection allowance. These 
should be returned to pre-CCRAA levels.
    
 Eliminate administrative fees paid to 
participating institutions. The government pays participating 
schools $5 per grant to administer and distribute Pell awards. 
Schools already benefit significantly from the Pell program 
because the aid makes attendance at those schools more 
affordable.
    
 Consider a maximum income cap. Currently there is 
no fixed upper-income limit for a student to qualify for Pell. 
Figures are simply plugged into a formula to calculate the 
amount for which the student qualifies. The higher the income 
level of the student and the student's family, the smaller 
grant they receive.
    
 Eliminate eligibility for less-than-half-time 
students. Funding should be reserved for students with a larger 
commitment to their education.
    
 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 a maximum award of $5,550. This award would be fully 
funded through discretionary spending.
    Encourage Policies That Promote Innovation. Federal 
intervention in higher education should increasingly be focused 
not solely on financial aid, but on policies that maximize 
innovation and ensure a robust menu of institutional options 
from which students and their families are able to choose. Such 
policies should include reexamining the data made available to 
students to make certain they are armed with information that 
will assist them in making their postsecondary decisions. 
Additionally, the Federal Government should act to remove 
regulatory barriers in higher education that act to restrict 
flexibility and innovative teaching, particularly as it relates 
to non-traditional models such as online coursework.
    Eliminate Ineffective and Duplicative Federal Education 
Programs. The current structure for K-12 programs at the 
Department of Education is fragmented and ineffective. 
Moreover, many programs are duplicative or are highly 
restricted, serving only a small number of students. Given the 
budget constraints, Congress must focus resources on programs 
that truly help students. The budget calls for reorganization 
and streamlining of K-12 programs and anticipates major reforms 
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA], which was 
last reauthorized as part of the No Child Left Behind Act 
[NCLB]. The budget would terminate and reduce programs that are 
failing to improve student achievement. It also recommends that 
the committees of jurisdiction address the duplication among 
the 82 programs that are designed to improve teacher quality.
    Encourage Private Funding for Cultural Agencies. Federal 
subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting can no longer be justified. The activities and 
content funded by these agencies go beyond the core mission of 
the Federal Government and they are generally enjoyed by people 
of higher income levels, making them a wealth transfer from 
poorer to wealthier citizens. These agencies can raise funds 
from private-sector patrons, which will also free them from any 
risk of political interference.
    Eliminate the Corporation for National and Community 
Service. Programs administered out of this agency--which 
created the oxymoron ``paid volunteer''--provide funding to 
students and others who work in certain areas of public 
service. Participation in these programs is not based on need. 
The Federal Government already has aid programs focused on low-
income students, and paying volunteers is not a core Federal 
responsibility, especially in times of high deficits and debt. 
Further, it is much more efficient to have such efforts operate 
at the State and local level by the community that receives the 
benefit of the service.
    Eliminate Administrative Fees Paid to Schools in the 
Campus-Based Student Aid Programs. Under current law, 
participating higher education institutions are allowed to use 
5 percent of Federal program funds for administrative purposes. 
The budget recommends prohibiting these funds from being used 
for administrative costs. Schools already benefit significantly 
from participating in federal student aid programs.
    Terminate the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. This 
program funds grants to reduce youth substance abuse. Program 
evaluations have repeatedly found the program to be 
ineffective.
    Promote State, Local, and Private Funding for Museums and 
Libraries. The Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services 
is an independent agency that makes grants to museums and 
libraries. This is not a core Federal responsibility. This 
function can be funded at the State and local level and 
augmented significantly by charitable contributions from the 
private sector.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

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

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    The principal driver of spending in this function is 
Medicaid, the Federal-State low-income health program. It 
represents more than 70 percent of the function total, and is 
growing at a rate of 5 percent per year--far faster than the 
growth of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office 
[CBO] projects federal spending on this program to be $258 
billion in fiscal year 2012. This is expected to more than 
double within the next 10 years, reaching $622 billion by 
fiscal year 2022.
    But this represents only the Federal share of Medicaid. 
State spending on the program is expected to follow these same 
trends. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services' December 2010 Actuarial Report on the Financial 
Outlook on Medicaid, total State spending will rise from $133.5 
billion in 2010 to $327.6 billion in 2019.
    While these spending trends are clearly unsustainable, 
Medicaid also has fostered a two-tiered hierarchy in the health 
care marketplace that stigmatizes Medicaid enrollees. Its 
perverse funding structure is exacerbating budget pressures at 
the State and Federal level, while creating a mountain of 
waste. With administrators looking to control costs and 
providers refusing to participate in a system that severely 
under-reimburses their services, Medicaid beneficiaries are 
ultimately finding it increasingly difficult to obtain even the 
most basic medical care. Absent reform, Medicaid will not be 
able to deliver on its promise to provide a sturdy health-care 
safety net for society's most vulnerable.
    Medicaid's current structure gives States a perverse 
incentive to expand the program and little incentive to save. 
For every dollar that a State government spends on Medicaid, 
the Federal Government pays an average of 57 cents. Expanding 
Medicaid coverage during boom years is tempting and easy to 
do--State governments pay less than half the cost. Yet to 
restrain Medicaid's growth, States must rescind a dollar's 
worth of coverage to save 43 cents.
    The recently enacted health care law adds even more 
liabilities to an already unsustainable program. CBO estimates 
the new law will increase Federal Medicaid spending by $931 
billion. This is due to the millions of new beneficiaries that 
the law drives into the program. In fact, CBO estimates that 
over the next 10 years, no fewer than 30 million new enrollees 
will be added the Medicaid program.
    For all these reasons, this budget recommends a fundamental 
reform of the Medicaid Program. One potential approach is 
described below.
    In addition to Medicaid, this budget function includes 
spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
[SCHIP], health research and training, including the National 
Institutes of Health [NIH] and substance abuse prevention and 
treatment; and consumer and occupational health and safety, 
including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
    Discretionary spending in this function includes funding 
for Project Bioshield, NIH, the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, and the Food and Drug Administration.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $363.3 billion in budget authority 
and $365.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. 
Discretionary spending for the year is $56.6 billion in budget 
authority and $58.2 billion in outlays; mandatory spending is 
$306.7 billion in budget authority and $307.3 billion in 
outlays. The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays 
are $4.05 trillion and $4.04 trillion, respectively.
    While the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget 
that will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to 
set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the 
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control 
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the 
sequester. If not replaced, based on staff estimates, 
discretionary spending in this function would be reduced by 
another $6.5 billion below the committee recommendation in 
fiscal year 2013.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Transform and Strengthen the Medicaid Safety Net. One way 
to secure the Medicaid benefit is by converting the Federal 
share of Medicaid spending into an allotment tailored to meet 
each State's needs, indexed for inflation and population 
growth. Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all 
approach that has tied the hands of State governments. States 
would no longer be shackled by federally determined program 
requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, each State would 
have the freedom and flexibility and to tailor a Medicaid 
Program that fit the needs of its unique population.
    The Chairman's mark proposes to turn Medicaid from an open-
ended entitlement into a block-granted program like SCHIP. 
These programs would be unified under the proposal and grown 
together for population growth and inflation.
    This reform also would improve the health care safety net 
for low-income Americans by giving States the ability to offer 
their Medicaid populations more options and better access to 
care. Medicaid recipients, like all other Americans, deserve to 
choose their own doctors and make their own health care 
decisions, instead of having Washington make those decisions 
for them.
    Based on this kind of reform, this budget assumes $810 
billion in savings over 10 years, easing the fiscal burdens 
imposed on State budgets and contributing to the long-term 
stabilization of the Federal Government's fiscal path.
    Repeal the Medicaid Expansions in the New Health Care Law. 
The recently enacted health care law calls for major expansions 
in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. These expansions 
will have a significant impact on the Federal share of the 
Medicaid Program, and will dramatically increase outlays.
    In the face of enormous stress on Federal and State budgets 
and declining quality of care for Medicaid, the new health care 
law would increase the eligible population for the program by 
one-third. For fiscal years 2014 through 2023, CBO projects the 
new law will increase Federal spending by $932 billion.
    This future fiscal burden will have serious budgetary 
consequences for both Federal and State governments. While the 
health law requires the Federal Government to finance 100 
percent of the Medicaid costs associated with covering new 
enrollees, this provision begins to phase out in fiscal year 
2016. At that time, State governments will be required to 
assume a share of this cost. This share increases from fiscal 
year 2016 through 2020, when States will be required to finance 
10 percent of the health law's expansion of Medicaid.
    Not only does this expansion magnify the challenges to both 
State and Federal budgets, it also binds the hands of local 
governments in developing solutions that meet the unique needs 
of their citizens. The health care law would exacerbate the 
already crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates that 
have resulted in below-market reimbursements, poor health care 
outcomes, and restrictive services. The budget calls for 
repealing the Medicaid expansions contained in the health care 
law and removing the law's burdensome programmatic mandates on 
State governments. Adopting this option would save $932 billion 
over 10 years.
    Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health 
Care Law. According to CBO estimates, the health law proposes 
to spend $800 billion over the next 10 years providing eligible 
individuals with subsidies to purchase government-approved 
health insurance. These subsidies can only be used to purchase 
plans that meet standards determined by the new health care 
law. In addition to this enormous market distortion, the law 
also stipulates a complex maze of eligibility and income tests 
to determine how much of a subsidy qualifying individuals may 
receive.
    The new law couples these subsidies with a mandate for 
individuals to purchase health insurance and bureaucratic 
controls on the types of insurance that may legally be offered. 
Taken together, these provisions will undermine the private 
insurance market, which serves as the backbone of the current 
U.S. health care system. Exchange subsidies will undermine the 
competitive forces of the marketplace. Government mandates will 
drive out all but the largest insurance companies. Punitive tax 
penalties will force individuals to purchase coverage whether 
they choose to or not. Further, this budget does not condone 
any policy that would require entities or individuals to 
finance activities make health decisions that violate their 
religious beliefs. This budget repeals the President's onerous 
health care law for this and many other reasons.
    Left in place, the health law will create pressures that 
will eventually lead to a single-payer system in which the 
Federal Government determines how much health care Americans 
need and what kind of care they can receive. This budget 
recommends repealing the architecture of this new law, which 
puts heath care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats, and 
instead allowing Congress to pursue patient-centered health 
care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by 
empowering consumers.
    For Function 550, repeal of the insurance subsidies and 
other exchange-related spending would save roughly $640 billion 
over 10 years. To be clear, this budget repeals all federal 
spending related to the health law's exchange subsidies and 
related spending. CBO's $800 billion estimate for the spending 
associated with exchange subsidies combines a mix of both 
outlays and revenues. Function 550 reflects only the savings 
that would result from repealing the federal outlay portion of 
this spending. The remaining $160 billion in savings is 
associated with the revenues spent under the new law for 
premium credits. This budget assumes full repeal of all of the 
new health care law's tax increases as part of comprehensive 
tax reform.
    Other Related Savings: Interactions from repealing unspent 
stimulus funding and other associated provisions in the new 
health care law save roughly $4 billion over 10 years. This is 
largely to do streamlining discretionary programs and promoting 
efficiencies within existing programs.
                         FUNCTION 570: MEDICARE

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    With the creation of Medicare in 1965, the United States 
made a commitment to help fund the medical care of elderly 
Americans without exhausting their life savings or the assets 
and incomes of their working children and younger relatives. In 
urging the creation of Medicare, President Kennedy said that 
such a program was chiefly needed to protect, not the poor, but 
people who had worked for years and suddenly found all their 
savings gone because of a costly health problem.
    But spending for Medicare has grown quickly in recent 
decades--in part because of rising enrollment and in part 
because of rising costs per enrollee--and has reached 
unsustainable rates. Between 1970 and 2011, gross federal 
spending for Medicare rose from 0.7 percent of GDP to 3.7 
percent. Under the alternative fiscal scenario in CBO's The 
Long-Term Budget Outlook (June 2011), mandatory spending on 
Medicare is projected to reach 7 percent of GDP by 2035 and 14 
percent of GDP by 2085. CBO's March baseline projects that 
Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be bankrupt by 
2022.
    Medicare's imbalance threatens beneficiaries' access to 
quality, affordable care. The program's fundamentally flawed 
structure is driving up health care costs, which are, in turn, 
threatening to bankrupt the system--and ultimately the Nation. 
Without reform, the program will end up causing exactly what it 
was created to avoid: millions of America's seniors without 
adequate health security and a younger working generation 
saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that 
cannot be sustained.
    Letting government break its promises to current seniors 
and to future generations is unacceptable. In addition, placing 
Medicare on a sustainable path is an indispensable part of 
restoring the Federal Government's fiscal balance. The reforms 
outlined in this budget protect and preserve Medicare for those 
in or near retirement, while saving and strengthening the 
program so future generations can count on it when they retire.
    The Medicare program's spending appears in Function 570 of 
the budget resolution. The function reflects the Medicare Part 
A Hospital Insurance [HI] Program, Part B Supplementary Medical 
Insurance [SMI] Program, Part C Medicare Advantage Program, and 
Part D Prescription Drug Benefit, as well as premiums paid by 
qualified aged and disabled beneficiaries.
    The various parts of the program are financed in different 
ways. Part A benefits are financed primarily by a payroll tax 
(currently 2.9 percent of taxable earnings), the revenues from 
which are credited to the HI Trust Fund. For Part B, premiums 
paid by beneficiaries cover about one-quarter of outlays, and 
the Treasury General Fund covers the rest. (Payments to private 
insurance plans under Part C are financed by a blend of funds 
from Parts A and B.) Enrollees' premiums under Part D are set 
to cover about one-quarter of the cost of the basic 
prescription drug benefit, although many low-income enrollees 
receive larger subsidies; general funds cover most of the 
remaining cost.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $510 billion in budget authority 
and $510 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary 
spending is $6.7 billion in budget authority and $6.6 billion 
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is 
$503 billion in budget authority and $503 billion in outlays. 
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $6.5 
trillion and $6.5 trillion respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                            PREMIUM SUPPORT

    In the Medicare system, the Federal Government--not the 
patient--is the customer; and the government has been a clumsy, 
ineffective steward of value. Controlling costs in an open-
ended fee-for-service system has proved impossible to do 
without limiting access or sacrificing quality. Over the 
program's entire history, in a vain attempt to get control of 
the waste in the system, Washington has made across-the-board 
payment reductions to providers without regard to quality or 
patient satisfaction. It has not worked. Costs have continued 
to grow, seniors continue to lose access to quality care, and 
the program remains on a path to bankruptcy. Absent reform, 
Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of current seniors 
and future generations.
    Reform aimed at empowering individuals--with a strengthened 
safety net for the poor and the sick--will not only ensure the 
fiscal sustainability of this program, the Federal budget, and 
the U.S. economy, but also guarantee that Medicare can fulfill 
the promise of health security for America's seniors.
    The Medicare reform envisioned in this budget resolution 
begins with a commitment to keep the promises made to those who 
now are in or near retirement. Consequently, for those 55 and 
older, the Medicare program and its benefits will remain as 
they are, without change.
    For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known 
as ``premium support.''
    Starting in 2023, seniors (those who first become eligible 
by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2023) would be given a 
choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional 
fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare 
Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment 
either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by 
the senior, depending on the plan's cost.
    The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a 
list of guaranteed coverage options, a health plan that best 
suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program; a 
Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, 
directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to 
subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner 
similar to that of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The 
Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the 
sick would receive higher payments if their conditions 
worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional 
assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier 
seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of 
their premiums. Also starting in 2023, the age of eligibility 
for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with 
Social Security's retirement age.
    This approach to strengthening the Medicare program--which 
is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans--would 
ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the 
future. It would set up a carefully monitored exchange for 
Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the 
Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all 
Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that 
Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive 
coverage.
    While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare 
fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or 
becoming eligible in the next 10 years, all seniors would have 
the choice to opt-in to the new Medicare program once it began 
in 2023. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to 
choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health 
security throughout their retirement years. It would also 
expand that freedom to non-retirees by giving certain employers 
the option to offer their employees a free choice option, 
smoothing the transition from their working years to when 
seniors become Medicare-eligible. This would enable workers to 
devote their employer's health coverage contribution to the 
purchase a health insurance plan that works best for them.
    This reform also ensures affordability by fixing the 
currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition 
work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing 
health care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their 
health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete 
against each other on price and quality.

            ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM

    A Long-Term ``Doc Fix.'' In recent years, Medicare's 
physician reimbursement formula--the ``sustained growth rate'' 
[SGR]--has threatened steep reductions in payments, leaving 
doctors uncertain about their incomes and, in some cases, 
reluctant to take on additional Medicare patients. Congress has 
patched over the problem numerous times with ad hoc increases 
in reimbursements--a practice known as the ``doc fix.'' These 
measures have become increasingly expensive to taxpayers 
without stabilizing the program. This budget accommodates 
legislation that fixes the Medicare physician payment formula 
for the next 10 years so that Medicare beneficiaries continue 
to have access to health care. It provides for a reimbursement 
system that fairly compensates physicians who treat Medicare 
beneficiaries while providing incentives to improve quality and 
efficiency.
    Ending the Raid on the Medicare Trust Fund. Supporters of 
the 2010 government takeover of health care insisted the law 
would both shore up the Medicare Trust Fund and pay for a new 
health care entitlement program. In testimony before the 
Committee, Medicare's chief actuary stated the truism that the 
same dollar could not be used twice. This budget calls for 
directing any potential Medicare savings in current law toward 
shoring up Medicare, not paying for new entitlements. The 
budget also urges repeal of the health care law's new rationing 
board (the Independent Payment Advisory Board), in addition to 
stabilizing plan choices for current seniors.
    Medical Liability Insurance Reform. This budget also 
advances common-sense curbs on abusive and frivolous lawsuits. 
Medical lawsuits and excessive verdicts increase health care 
costs and result in reduced access to care. When mistakes 
happen, patients have a right to fair representation and fair 
compensation. But the current tort litigation system too often 
serves the interests of lawyers while driving up costs. The 
budget supports several changes to laws governing medical 
liability, including limits on noneconomic and punitive 
damages.
    Means-Testing Premiums for High-Income Seniors. This budget 
also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test 
premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors, 
similar to the President's proposal in his fiscal year 2013 
budget.
                     FUNCTION 600: INCOME SECURITY

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

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

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $517.1 billion in budget authority 
and $516.8 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. 
Discretionary spending is $59.9 billion in budget authority and 
$63.9 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory 
spending in 2013 is $457.2 billion in budget authority and 
$452.9 billion in outlays. The 10-year totals for budget 
authority and outlays are $4.9 trillion and $4.8 trillion, 
respectively.
    While the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget 
that will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to 
set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the 
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control 
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the 
sequester. If not replaced, staff estimates show that this 
function would be reduced by another $4.7 billion below the 
committee recommendation in fiscal year 2013.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Reduce Spending on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program [LIHEAP]. This budget assumes the same level of funding 
for LIHEAP in President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget 
request. This saves approximately $500 million in budget 
authority for fiscal year 2013.

                           MANDATORY SPENDING

    Block Grant the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
[SNAP]. Spending on SNAP--formerly known as the Food Stamp 
Program--has increased dramatically over the past three years. 
SNAP spending grew from $20.6 billion in 2002 to nearly $40 
billion in 2008, and is projected to be over $80 billion in 
2012. While the increase between 2008 and 2012 is partially due 
to the recession, SNAP spending is forecast to be permanently 
higher than previous estimates even after employment has 
recovered. A variety of factors are driving this growth, but 
one major reason is that 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 2016--after employment has recovered--
providing States with time to structure their own programs. It 
would also envision improving work incentives by requiring a 
certain amount of people to engage in work activity, such as 
job search, community service activities and education and job 
training. This proposal is estimated to save $122.5 billion 
over 10 years.
    Eliminate Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility. Broad-based 
categorical eligibility allows for households to be made 
eligible through receiving a minimal Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families [TANF] fund benefit or service. Typically, an 
individual is made eligible by receiving a TANF brochure or 
being referred to a social services ``800'' telephone number. 
This allows individuals to qualify for SNAP benefits under less 
restrictive criteria. For example, 40 states currently have no 
asset test for receiving SNAP benefits.
    Eliminate Abuse of LIHEAP: The Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program [LIHEAP] provides low-income families with 
help to pay heating bills. However, many states are providing 
families with $1.00 in LIHEAP benefits in order to increase 
SNAP benefits (see ``Categorical Eligibility'' above). This 
proposal would eliminate that abuse.
    Reform Civil Service Pensions. In keeping with a 
recommendation from the National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility, this option calls for Federal employees--
including Members of Congress and staff--to make greater 
contributions toward their own retirement. It would also 
eliminate the ability for individuals to receive a ``special 
retirement supplement,'' which pays Federal employees the 
equivalent of their Social Security benefit at an earlier age. 
As the Office of Personnel Management states on its website, 
this benefit is ``unique'' to the Federal Employee Retirement 
System. This would achieve significant budgetary savings and 
also help facilitate a transition to a defined contribution 
system for new Federal employees that would give them more 
control over their own retirement security. From a fiscal 
responsibility standpoint, this option would replace a system 
that is creating unfunded future liabilities for taxpayers with 
a fully funded system: it could save an estimated $112.7 
billion over 10 years.
    Conform Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits to Social 
Security Benefits. Tier 1 benefits for railroad retirees are 
supposed to mimic Social Security benefits, but they are more 
generous than Social Security in many ways. This option would 
conform Tier 1 so that its benefits would equal those of Social 
Security, with an estimated savings to taxpayers of $2 billion 
over 10 years.
    Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC]. 
Currently, the PBGC faces a $26 billion unfunded liability. 
While this budget does not assume the President's proposal, it 
recognizes the need to reform the PBGC to ensure that a future 
taxpayer funded bailout does not occur. Potential savings could 
total an estimated $8.34 billion over 10 years.
    Eliminate the Failed Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] 
Housing Subsidies. This resolution supports jettisoning the 
loan subsidy initiative, Home Affordable Modification Program 
[HAMP], created by the Obama administration as part of TARP for 
homeowners delinquent on mortgage payments. While the program 
announced in early 2009 that it would help up to four million 
homeowners avoid foreclosure, since then it has made only 
762,839 loan modifications permanent--just 19 percent of the 
target. Eliminating HAMP could save $1.4 billion over 10 years.
    Unemployment Insurance. This budget resolution assumes that 
unemployment benefit expansions and extended benefits expire as 
scheduled under current law and does not assume another 
extension of emergency unemployment insurance benefits. The 
previous expansions have increased UI benefits to 99 weeks--the 
longest that had ever been offered prior to this recession, and 
have been extended a record 11 times.
    Reform Supplemental Security Income. Welfare programs 
typically pay benefits on a sliding scale. However, SSI is 
different, paying an average of $600 for each and every child 
in a household that receives benefits. This reform would create 
a sliding scale for children on SSI. Advocates for the disabled 
have expressed support for creating a sliding scale for 
children on SSI in the past. For example, Jonathan Stein, a 
witness for the Democrats at an October 27, 2011 Ways and Means 
Subcommittee hearing said about this proposal in 1995: ``(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.'' Providing SSI on a sliding scale would save $3.5 
billion over 10 years.
    Reform Means-Tested Entitlements. Congress should act to 
reform means-tested entitlements. These programs have grown 
rapidly over the past 10 years, and Congress should cap these 
programs and begin devolving them to the States. This would 
build upon the historic progress of bipartisan welfare reform 
in the late 1990s. These reforms transformed cash welfare by 
encouraging work, limiting the duration of benefits, and giving 
states more control over how money was being spent. The TANF 
reforms of the old Aid for Families with Dependent Children cut 
welfare caseloads in half as poverty rates declined.
                     FUNCTION 650: SOCIAL SECURITY

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

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

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    Social Security contains both on-budget and off-budget 
spending--the latter consisting of benefit payments for the 
OASDI program. The budget resolution reflects only the on-
budget spending. In that category, the resolution calls for 
$53.2 billion in budget authority and $53.3 billion in outlays 
in fiscal year 2013. Over 10 years, the on-budget totals are 
$490.5 billion in budget authority and $490.8 billion in 
outlays.
    In the off-budget category, the resolution calls for $769.0 
billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2013 and $765.5 
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2013. Over 10 years, the 
off-budget totals are $10.1 trillion in budget authority and 
$10.1 trillion in outlays.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

                FACING SOCIAL SECURITY'S FISCAL PROBLEM

    An all-too-common reaction to the fiscal problem in Social 
Security has been denial that a problem exists. It is claimed 
that the Social Security Trust Fund will remain solvent for at 
least a decade, at which point the government could 
theoretically cover any shortfall by raising taxes. Others 
downplay the necessity for change, contending that sustained 
economic growth could take care of the problem all by itself.
    Neither is correct. First, any value in the balances in the 
Social Security Trust Fund is derived from dubious government 
accounting. The trust fund is not a real savings account. From 
1983 to 2011, it collected more Social Security taxes than it 
paid out in Social Security benefits. But the government 
borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other 
government programs unrelated to Social Security. The Trust 
Fund holds Treasury securities, but the ability to redeem these 
securities is completely dependent on the Treasury's ability to 
raise money through taxes or borrowing.
    Beginning in 2011, Social Security started paying out more 
in benefits than it collected in taxes--in other words, running 
cash deficits--a trend that will worsen as the baby boomers 
continue to retire. To pay full benefits, the government must 
pay back the money it owes Social Security.
    Those who wish to solve this problem by raising taxes 
ignore the profound economic damage that such large tax 
increases would entail. Just lifting the cap on income subject 
to Social Security taxes, as some have proposed, would, when 
combined with the Obama administration's other preferred tax 
policies, lift the top marginal tax rate above 50 percent. Most 
economists agree that raising marginal tax rates that high 
would create a significant drag on economic growth, job 
creation, productivity and wages.
    Social Security's fragile condition poses a serious problem 
that threatens to break the broader compact in which workers 
support the generation preceding them, and earn the support of 
those who follow.
    There is a bipartisan path forward on Social Security--one 
that requires all parties first to acknowledge the fiscal 
realities of this critical program. The President's Fiscal 
Commission made a positive first step by advancing solutions to 
ensure the solvency of Social Security. They suggested a more 
progressive benefit structure, with benefits for higher-income 
workers growing more slowly than those of workers with lower 
incomes who are more vulnerable to economic shocks in 
retirement. The Commission also recommended reforms that take 
account of increases in longevity, to arrest the demographic 
problems that are undermining Social Security's finances.
    In addition, there is bipartisan consensus that Social 
Security reform should provide more help to those who fall 
below the poverty line after retirement. There is no security 
in a program that is blind to the needs of the Nation's most 
vulnerable citizens--lower-income seniors should receive more 
targeted assistance than those who have had ample opportunity 
to save for retirement.
    While certain details of the Commission's Social Security 
proposals, particularly on the tax side, are of debatable 
merit, the Commission undoubtedly made positive steps forward 
on bipartisan solutions to strengthen Social Security. This 
budget seeks to build on the Commission's important work, 
calling on action to solve this pressing problem by requiring 
the President to put forward specific ideas on fixing Social 
Security. The budget also puts the onus on Congress to offer 
legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical 
program.

                          STARTING THE PROCESS

    This budget calls for setting in motion the process of 
reforming Social Security by altering a current-law trigger 
that, in the event that the Social Security program is not 
sustainable, requires the President, in conjunction with the 
Social Security Board of Trustees, to submit a plan for 
restoring balance to the fund. This option would then require 
congressional leaders to put forward their best ideas as well. 
Although the Committee on Ways and Means would make the final 
determination, this option would require that:
    
 If in any year the Board of Trustees of the 
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, in its annual 
Trustees' Report, determines that the 75-year actuarial balance 
of the Social Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the 
annual balance of the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th 
year is in deficit, the Board of Trustees should, no later than 
the 30th of September of the same calendar year, submit to the 
President recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to 
achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive 
annual balance in the 75th year.
    
 No later than the 1st of December of the same 
calendar year in which the Board of Trustees submits its 
recommendations, the President shall promptly submit 
implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress including 
recommendations necessary to achieve a positive 75-year 
actuarial balance and a positive annual balance in the 75th 
year;
    
 Within 60 days of the President submitting 
legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which the 
legislation has been referred shall report the bill which shall 
be considered by the full House or Senate under expedited 
procedures.
    Again, the aim of this option is to force recognition of 
the need to save Social Security. This procedure offers a first 
step in that direction.
              FUNCTION 700: VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This category includes funding for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs [VA], which provides benefits to veterans who 
meet various eligibility rules. Benefits range from income 
security for veterans, principally disability compensation and 
pensions; veterans education, training, and rehabilitation 
services; hospital and medical care for veterans; and other 
veterans' benefits and services, such as home loan guarantees.
    The past two decades have seen extraordinary growth in the 
costs of providing benefits and services for the nation's 22 
million veterans. The two largest categories of veterans 
spending are for income security and medical care. This growth 
occurred despite the declining size of the veterans population 
and reflects increased benefits legislated by Congress and the 
aging of the veterans population.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $134.6 billion in budget authority 
and $135.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. This is an 
increase of 5 percent from last year's level. Discretionary 
spending is $61.3 billion in budget authority and $62.1 billion 
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. This resolution also provides 
for up to $54.5 billion in advance appropriations for medical 
care, consistent with the Veterans Health Care Budget and 
Reform Transparency Act of 2009. Mandatory spending in 2013 is 
$73.3 billion in budget authority and $73.2 billion in outlays. 
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $1.5 
trillion and $1.5 trillion, respectively. This is in line with 
the President's request.
    This budget fully funds the Nation's commitment to the 
services and benefits earned by veterans through their selfless 
military service. Those who have served in harm's way have 
earned the gratitude of their countrymen and are the highest 
priority within this budget.
    While the Committee does not assume any savings in Function 
700, it notes the bipartisan support for certain mandatory 
savings proposals. These proposals include:
    Repeal Hartness v. Nicholson court decision. In 2006, the 
Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims determined that age can be 
used to determine qualification for certain pension benefits 
rather than disability status. Addressing this judicial 
expansion of the scope of veterans benefits through legislation 
would clarify eligibility for pension benefits for veterans age 
65 and over and reaffirm the original intention of the law: 
that disability status, and not age, determines eligibility for 
certain pension benefits. This policy proposal was included in 
the joint House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees' letter 
to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction [JSCDR] last 
year.
    COLA Round-down. Another savings recommendation included in 
the joint House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees' letter 
to the JSCDR is to round down to the nearest dollar the annual 
cost of living adjustment [COLA] for veterans' disability 
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation. This 
minor adjustment to compensation payments would have little 
impact, if any, on veterans and was also included in the 
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
    Slow the growth in VA contributions towards increasing 
tuition rates. Veteran education benefits became significantly 
more generous following the 2008 passage of the Post-911 GI 
Bill. The Post-911 GI Bill covers veterans' tuition, fees, and 
textbook costs, in addition to providing a monthly living 
stipend. The rapidly increasing average cost of tuition 
nationwide--about 6 percent per year--is causing unexpected and 
considerable increases in education benefit spending.
    Furthermore, there is strong evidence that uncapped federal 
student loan programs--both for veterans and for other 
populations--are enabling the rapid rise of tuition costs. As 
higher-education analyst Art Hauptman has written, ``it is 
difficult to believe that colleges and universities could have 
increased their charges so rapidly over time without the ready 
availability of students' ability to borrow.''
    Both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees 
proposed to the JSCDR that capping the annual increase in 
tuition support at 3 percent would lead to substantial savings 
and, by no longer enabling rapidly rising tuition, would not 
adversely impact veterans at all.
                FUNCTION 750: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

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

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $54.3 billion in budget authority 
and $57.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary 
spending is $51.8 billion in budget authority and $53.8 billion 
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is 
$2.4 billion in budget authority and $3.9 billion in outlays. 
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $579.4 
billion and $596.3 billion, respectively.
    Spending in this function has increased by $26.7 billion or 
an increase of 75 percent over the past decade. According to 
the Government Accountability Office [GAO], since fiscal year 
2005, over $30 billion has been disbursed to more than 200 DOJ 
programs authorized through three sources: Community Oriented 
Policing Services, the Office of Justice Programs, and the 
Office on Violence Against Women. The GAO has determined that 
many of these grants--several of which have been used to fund 
recreational activities, fashion shows, pool parties, and even 
doughnut-eating contests--could be viewed as wasteful, 
overlapping and duplicative.
    With our nation facing dangerous terrorist threats as well 
as a tidal wave of debt, Federal taxpayer money for the 
Department of Justice should be focused on administering 
justice, arresting and prosecuting terrorists, investigating 
crimes, and seeking punishment for those guilty of unlawful 
behavior. It's the job of the States and communities to 
determine the best course of action in deterring crime. The 
budget focuses on funding core government responsibilities and 
reducing duplication, excess, and unnecessary spending. While 
the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget that will 
require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to set 
priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the 
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control 
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the 
sequester. If not replaced, based on staff estimates, this 
function would be reduced by another $5.7 billion below the 
committee recommendation in fiscal year 2013.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

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

                         DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

    Consolidate Justice Grants. In 2010, DOJ awarded nearly 
$3.9 billion in grants, including $4.0 billion provided in the 
2009 stimulus bill. The Congressional Research Service [CRS] 
and GAO identified overlap and duplication within many of these 
grant programs. CRS suggested ``possible policy options could 
include altering the current grant programs to target funding 
for specific activities in each grant program or consolidating 
the different grant programs into one large program.'' In 
addition, these grant programs address law-enforcement issues 
that are primarily state and local responsibilities. This 
option streamlines grants into three categories--first 
responder, law enforcement, and victims--while eliminating 
waste, inefficiency and bureaucracy.
    Adopt ``YouCut'' Proposals. The budget also supports 
several of the House Republican ``YouCut'' proposals introduced 
during the 111th and 112th Congresses. One proposal in Function 
750 is the elimination of the duplicative National Drug 
Intelligence Center, which would save more than $400 million 
over 10 years.
                    FUNCTION 800: GENERAL GOVERNMENT

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    General government consists of the activities of the 
Legislative Branch; the Executive Office of the President; 
general tax administration and fiscal operations of the 
Department of the Treasury (including the Internal Revenue 
Service [IRS]); the Office of Personnel Management, and the 
real property and personnel costs of the General Services 
Administration; general purpose fiscal assistance to States, 
localities, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories; and 
other general government activities.
    Several programs in general government have seen steady 
growth since 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
increased the General Services Administration's budget by $5.8 
billion, for example. The President's 2013 budget requests 
significant increases for this function, boosting budget 
authority by 20 percent compared to 2008 levels.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $23.2 billion in budget authority 
and $25.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary 
spending is $16.8 billion in budget authority and $18.5 billion 
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is 
$6.3 billion in budget authority and $6.6 billion in outlays. 
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $239.6 
billion and $241.0 billion, respectively.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    The resolution aims to eliminate identified waste across 
all Federal Government branches and agencies. Federal pay, 
benefits, and mismanagement of properties are just a few areas 
into which the government can look for savings that would 
reduce economic distortions harmful to the private sector. 
While the committees of jurisdiction will determine the actual 
policies in pursuit of these goals, the options below offer 
several potential approaches.
    Prohibit New Construction. In fiscal year 2010, the 
government owned 77,700 properties which were either 
underutilized or not utilized at all, at a cost of $1.7 
billion. This budget adopts the policy of the fiscal year 2011 
continuing resolution, H.R. 1, to prohibit new construction for 
one year of government buildings managed by the General 
Services Administration.
    Adopt ``YouCut'' Proposals. The budget also incorporates 
several of the House Republican ``YouCut'' proposals introduced 
during the 111th and 112th Congresses. One example in Function 
800 is the elimination of the Presidential Election Campaign 
Fund, which saves over $350 million over 10 years.
    Reduce Student Loan Repayment for Government Jobs. As the 
Nation struggles with high unemployment and uncertainty in the 
private sector, taxpayer dollars go to fund Federal jobs that 
are not only insulated from market forces, but enjoy above-
average pay and benefits, one of which is repayments of student 
loans. The budget calls for reducing this extra benefit that is 
not generally available in the private sector.
    Terminate the Election Assistance Commission [EAC]. This 
independent agency was created in 2002 as part of the Help 
America Vote Act to provide grants to States to modernize 
voting equipment. Its mission has been fulfilled. Even the 
National Association of Secretaries of State has passed 
resolutions stating that the EAC has served its purpose and 
funding is no longer necessary. EAC should be eliminated and 
any remaining valuable functions transferred to the Federal 
Election Commission.
    Accompany pro-growth tax reform with responsible reductions 
to the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. Changes in the tax code 
are occurring at a rate of approximately one a day and the 
Internal Revenue Code now contains approximately four million 
words. Each year, taxpayers and businesses spend an 
unbelievable six billion hours complying with filing 
requirements. This resolution calls for simplifying the 
burdensome tax code, naturally reducing the agency's size by 
promoting policies that lead to less reliance on the IRS.
                       FUNCTION 900: NET INTEREST

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    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 Function 900, 
which presents the interest paid for the Federal Government's 
borrowing less the interest received by the Federal Government 
from trust fund investments and loans to the public. It is a 
mandatory payment, with no discretionary components.
    For the past three years, the Federal Government has run 
deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and despite some 
discretionary spending reductions since the beginning of the 
112th Congress, the Federal budget is on track for another year 
with a deficit above $1 trillion. Because much of this spending 
is so deeply entrenched, reducing the associated interest costs 
will require sustained spending restraint. This budget 
resolution does so and it reduces net interest by $514 billion 
over 10 years compared with the President's budget.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for $234.2 billion in mandatory budget 
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2012. The 10-year totals 
for budget authority and outlays are $4.26 trillion.
    On-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are $344.4 
billion in fiscal year 2013, and $5.32 trillion over 10 years. 
The on-budget figures are larger than the function totals 
because the former are offset by off-budget interest payments 
to the Social Security Trust Fund, which are reflected as 
negative numbers.
    Off-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are 
-$110.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, and -$1.06 trillion over 
10 years.
                        FUNCTION 920: ALLOWANCES

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    Function 920 represents a category called ``allowances'' 
that captures the budgetary effects of cross-cutting proposals 
or contingencies that impact multiple functions rather than one 
specific area of the budget. It also represents a place-holder 
category for any budgetary impacts that the Congressional 
Budget Office [CBO] has yet to assign to a specific budget 
function. CBO typically reassigns the budgetary effects of any 
legislation enacted within Function 920 once a new baseline 
update is released.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    In August 2011, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 
2011 [BCA] (P.L. 112-25) that provided for significant spending 
reductions enforced by statutory spending caps and an automatic 
sequestration process. The BCA did not specify a distribution 
of spending reductions in specific budget functions other than 
defense (Function 050) and Medicare (Function 570). The law, 
however, did require reductions in non-defense and non-Medicare 
areas of the budget. At the time that the March 2012 baseline 
was released, CBO did not have account-level information on 
what non-defense and non-Medicare accounts the administration 
had determined were exempt from reduction under the terms of 
the BCA. CBO, therefore, has assigned the non-defense and non-
Medicare reductions required by the BCA to Function 920.
    The CBO baseline for Function 920 includes a total of $689 
billion and $629 billion in reductions for budget authority and 
outlays, respectively, to reflect the impact of the BCA on non-
defense and non-Medicare spending. The following four 
components are included in the baseline:
    1. A $265 billion and $235 billion reduction in non-defense 
budget authority and outlays, respectively, needed to comply 
with the discretionary spending caps set by the BCA in section 
101(c).
    2. An additional $362 billion and $336 billion reduction in 
total non-defense budget authority and outlays, respectively, 
needed to comply with the automatic sequester provision and 
revised discretionary spending caps under Section 302 of the 
BCA.
    3. A $15 billion and $11 billion reduction in discretionary 
budget authority and outlays, respectively, for disaster-
relief-designated spending not subject to the BCA spending 
caps. Under CBO's normal scoring conventions, the discretionary 
baseline reflects the most recently enacted discretionary level 
adjusted for inflation in the out years. Section 251(b)(2)(D) 
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as 
amended by the BCA, however, limits upward adjustments in 
spending limits for disaster-relief-designated spending to the 
10-year rolling average of previous disaster-relief-designated 
spending (excluding the highest and lowest years in calculating 
that average). CBO has estimated that a discretionary baseline 
carrying an inflated level of disaster spending, as provided 
for in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-
74), would result in disaster-relief spending levels greater 
than the rolling average limit set forth in the BCA. Therefore, 
CBO has added a downward adjustment in Function 920 to reduce 
disaster relief-designated spending in its baseline to comply 
with the BCA limit.
    4. A $46 billion reduction in both budget authority and 
outlays to non-Medicare and non-defense mandatory programs 
necessary to comply with the terms of the BCA.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Reconciliation and Sequester. This budget resolution 
assumes all savings called for by the BCA will, in fact, be 
realized. The budget, however, replaces the BCA's fiscal year 
2013 automatic sequester process for discretionary programs and 
its arbitrary across-the-board reductions in these programs 
with a more strategically sensible policy that meets the 
primary responsibility of government--the common defense, as 
well as other priorities. Accordingly, it achieves these 
savings through non-defense discretionary and mandatory savings 
that will be achieved through the reconciliation process.
    For fiscal year 2013, the CBO baseline projects the BCA 
sequester would reduce non-defense discretionary budget 
authority and outlays by $43 billion and $23 billion, 
respectively. The budget replaces the non-defense discretionary 
savings assumed in Function 920 for fiscal year 2013 with 
specific spending reductions in other functions while leaving 
the mandatory spending reductions in Function 920 in place. For 
fiscal years 2014 and beyond, the budget abides by the lower 
total discretionary and mandatory spending caps enacted as part 
of the BCA. In this way, the budget ensures that all of the 
remaining savings called for by the BCA will be achieved either 
through future policy decisions or the automatic enforcement 
procedures of the BCA.
    Federal Employee Pay Freeze and Attrition. The budget 
assumes cumulative discretionary savings of $256 billion over 
10 years by extending a freeze in federal employee pay that 
began in 2011 for three more years through 2015 and assuming a 
reduction in the federal civilian workforce through attrition 
whereby the administration would be permitted to hire one 
employee for every three that leave government service. 
Agencies involved in national security would be exempt from any 
limitation on hiring.
    Adjustment for Disaster-Spending Plug in the CBO Baseline. 
The budget assumes that any future disaster-relief-designated 
spending will be fully offset within the discretionary levels 
provided in this resolution. Accordingly, the budget does not 
assume the extension of the disaster funding enacted last year 
and the upward adjustment in the BCA's spending caps for 
subsequent years, and it reflects the removal of this spending. 
Over 10 years, the budget includes savings of $101 billion in 
budget authority and $91 billion in outlays by assuming that 
any future disaster funding is accommodated within the caps.
    The impact of removing CBO's disaster-relief-designated 
spending adjustment included in the Function 920 baseline is 
$15 billion and $11 billion in budget authority and outlays, 
respectively.
    Elimination of Student Loan Repayment for Government 
Employees. The budget assumes cumulative discretionary savings 
over 10 years of $800 million in budget authority and $670 
million in outlays by eliminating the repayment by the 
government of student loans for government employees.
    Program Integrity. The budget assumes that program 
integrity funding is accomplished within existing BCA cap 
levels for fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2021. By 
providing full funding for anti-fraud and other program 
integrity programs, this saves, on net, $11.8 billion.
            FUNCTION 950: UNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

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

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    The resolution calls for -$100.6 billion in budget 
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2013 (with the minus sign 
indicating receipts into the Treasury). Over 10 years, budget 
authority and outlays total -$1.139 trillion.
    On-budget amounts are -$84.7 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2012, and -$954.3 billion in budget 
authority and outlays over 10 years.
    Off-budget amounts are -$15.8 billion in budget authority 
and outlays in fiscal year 2013, and -$185.3 billion in budget 
authority and outlays over 10 years.

                      Illustrative Policy Options

    Federal Fleet Sales. The President's Fiscal Commission 
recommended several ways to achieve discretionary savings. This 
resolution adopts many of their proposals, such as reducing the 
Federal auto fleet by 20 percent, excluding the Department of 
Defense and the U.S. Postal Service. In 2010, the Federal 
Government reported a worldwide inventory of more than 662,000 
vehicles and spent $4.6 billion on its fleet. In addition, the 
2009 stimulus bill provided $300 million to ``green the Federal 
fleet'' by purchasing 17,205 vehicles--most of which became 
another back-door bailout for General Motors and Chrysler.
    This resolution builds on the Fiscal Commission's 
recommendation by proposing to sell a portion of the Federal 
fleet to reduce the deficit and to get rid of unneeded 
vehicles, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Federal Real Property Sales. The Fiscal Commission 
highlighted potential budget savings from another area where 
the mismanagement of taxpayer-owned assets and sheer amount of 
waste are staggering: Federal real estate and other property. 
The Federal real property inventory is so massive that the 
report accounting for it lags two years behind the current 
budget year. The most recent General Services Administration's 
Federal Real Property Report is from fiscal year 2010 and 
summarizes data from 2009. With such large timing differences 
and accompanying confusion, there is very little incentive for 
agencies to dispose of unneeded properties and very few 
repercussions from holding onto these properties indefinitely. 
The Federal Government owns, leases, or manages 1.1 million 
properties nationwide. Of those, non-defense buildings 
accounted for at least 400,000 of the total. Yet the 
government's track record for real estate asset sales has been 
poor.
    In 2009, Federal agencies received only about $50 million 
in proceeds from the sale of 2,228 assets--an average of 
$22,500 per property. Many buildings were simply given away as 
below-market-value bargains or even for free. On top of that, 
agencies reported spending $150 million in 2009 on the 
operating costs alone of properties that were already deemed to 
be unneeded and were waiting to either be sold or disposed.
    This resolution supports the Office of Management and 
Budget's continued advocacy of streamlining the asset sale 
process; loosening regulations for the disposal and sale of 
Federal property to eliminate red tape and waste; setting 
enforceable targets for asset sales; and holding government 
agencies accountable for the buildings they oversee. If done 
correctly, taxpayers can recoup billions of dollars from 
selling unused government property.
    Federal Land. 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 while simultaneously protecting land 
considered a national treasure, such as the 84 million acres 
managed by the National Park Service. Currently, the Federal 
Government owns 650 million acres of land--almost 30 percent of 
the land area of the United States.
      FUNCTION 970: GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

                              ----------                              


                            Function Summary

    This function includes funding for prosecution of the 
global war on terrorism [GWOT] and other closely related 
activities.

                Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

    This resolution calls for $96.7 billion in budget authority 
and $51.1 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2013. This 
includes amounts equal to the President's request to account 
for any future House consideration of appropriations for the 
global war on terrorism and other activities. This function 
accommodates all of the funding requested by the Department of 
Defense for military operations and by the Department of State 
for the incremental, non-enduring civilian activities in 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The funding budgeted in this 
function is not to be used as a reserve fund for other non-war 
activities.
    Defense Activities. This resolution assumes $88.5 billion 
for the military activities of the Department of Defense 
related to Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Given the complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces from 
Iraq at the end of 2011, the funding requested for Iraq is 
solely for the purpose of providing security assistance and 
cooperation with Iraqi security forces. As the U.S.-Iraq 
relationship transitions to a more normal state-to-state 
relationship, the funding for these activities should also 
transition to the base budget. It is our expectation that these 
activities will not be funded on a permanent basis outside the 
appropriate agency budgets.
    For Afghanistan, the budget request assumes average troop 
levels of 68,000 personnel as requested by the Department of 
Defense. This troop level is expected to be achieved by 
September 2012, a month before the start of fiscal year 2013. 
Defense Secretary Panetta has recently stated that Afghan 
security forces could assume lead responsibility for providing 
security during 2013, which suggests that the assumed force 
level may well be in excess of the levels that will be 
realized. Uncertainty is an inherent element of warfare, but 
the troop level assumption on which this budget request was 
built would seem to provide a cushion to offset the President's 
proposed cuts in the base defense budget. On top of this, the 
President's request also shifts all compensation costs for 
nearly 65,000 soldiers and marines from the base budget to the 
war budget. Viewed together, it appears that the administration 
is attempting to ameliorate the effects of its precipitous cuts 
in the defense budget by hiding costs in the uncapped war 
budget. Any such effort abuses Congress's efforts to fully 
budget for the war's extraordinary expenses and not allow these 
funds to be used for other purposes.
    Civilian Activities. This resolution assumes $8.2 billion 
for the activities of civilian agencies--primarily the State 
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development--
as part of the integrated civil-military strategy for securing 
American objectives in the frontline states.
    Of this total, $4 billion will be used for the civilian 
presence in Iraq to continue the transition process. The 
majority of Iraq GWOT funding will support diplomatic 
operations and military assistance programs recently 
transitioned from the Department of Defense.
    This budget also assumes a full year of operations funding 
for the Police Development Program [PDP] which trains Iraqi 
Security Forces to administer and sustain policing operations 
and provide for Iraq's internal security. The Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction [SIGIR] has raised concerns 
regarding PDP's effectiveness and the transparency of program 
spending. SIGIR notes that only 12 percent of program funds 
will be used for the program's purpose--advising and developing 
Iraqi police forces--while the majority of the budget (88 
percent) will fund security and life support. Assessing whether 
outputs of this program justify the substantial financial 
inputs needs to be further investigated. SIGIR also cites the 
State Department's failure to provide sufficient details on 
program costs, budgets, and measurements of performance 
outcomes. The State Department needs to respond to these 
concerns and ensure transparency and accountability of costs 
for PDP in the future.
    As the U.S. relationship with Iraq transitions to a more 
normal state-to-state relationship, future funding for U.S. 
operations in that country should also shift to the base 
budget.
    For Afghanistan, this budget assumes $3.2 billion to 
support U.S. civilian-led efforts to transfer security and 
governance responsibilities to the Afghans, in addition to 
providing foreign assistance programs that promote economic 
development and improve governance capacity. This budget also 
includes funding for counternarcotics and criminal justice 
programs. All of these efforts are in support of the U.S. 
counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.
    In order to succeed in Afghanistan, the United States must 
continue partnering with Pakistan to counter the spread of 
extremism, which threatens America and the world. Approximately 
$1 billion is provided for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency 
Capability Fund, which builds the capacity of Pakistan's 
security forces to effectively combat terrorism within its 
borders.
                                REVENUE

                              ----------                              

    Led by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of 
Michigan, this budget advances a framework that calls for an 
American tax system that is simple, efficient and fair to 
promote innovation and sustained job creation in the private 
sector.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See also, following this section of the report, the Views and 
Estimates letter from the Committee on Ways and Means that was signed 
by every Republican on the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The House Ways and Means Committee held more than a dozen 
hearings devoted to tax reform last year. Last October, 
Chairman Camp formally released an international tax reform 
discussion draft, with proposals designed to boost 
competitiveness and job creation in the United States. This 
budget reflects the progress that has been made over the past 
year by the House Ways and Means Committee, and calls for 
continued leadership to advance tax reform in the year ahead.
    This budget starts with the proposition that first, 
Congress must do no harm. It assumes that Congress will not 
allow massive, across-the-board tax increases to hit the 
economy in 2013. This budget then attacks complexity, 
unfairness, and inefficiency in the tax code with a set of 
fundamental reforms designed to lower tax rates, broaden the 
tax base, and reform the U.S. international tax rules, while 
getting rid of distortions, loopholes and preferences that 
divert economic resources from their most efficient uses.
    Following the unveiling of a principled approach to tax 
reform in last year's budget resolution, an overwhelming 
consensus has emerged that the country is in dire need of 
reform that lowers rates, broadens the tax base, and addresses 
global competitiveness. After three years, the administration 
also has begun to recognize the need for tax reform. The 
outline for corporate tax reform released by the administration 
in February, however, falls woefully short: the rates are too 
high; the tax base is too narrow (and used as a tool to provide 
political favors); and the international reforms are anti-
competitive.
    By contrast, the principles of reform outlined in this 
budget ensure a simpler, fairer tax code not just for large 
corporations but for small businesses and American families as 
well. Unlike the administration's plan, it improves the 
competitiveness of American workers and businesses in the 
global economy. America's trading partners have already 
reformed their tax systems to provide their companies with a 
competitive advantage. Competing in a 21st century global 
economy requires that America do the same.

Simplifying the Tax Code and Promoting Job Creation and Economic Growth

    Major proposals in this area are:
    
 Reject the President's call to raise taxes.
    
 Consolidate the current six individual income tax 
brackets into just two brackets of 10 and 25 percent.
    
 Reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.
    
 Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
    
 Broaden the tax base to maintain revenue at the 
appropriate level designated by this budget resolution for the 
next 10 years, and at a share of the economy consistent with 
historical norms of 18 to 19 percent in the following decades. 
These are levels compatible with growth, and--if the spending 
restraints in this budget are enacted--sufficient to fund 
government operations over time.
    
 Shift from a ``worldwide'' system of taxation to a 
``territorial'' tax system that puts American companies and 
their workers on a level playing field with foreign competitors 
and ends the ``lock-out effect'' that discourages companies 
from bringing back foreign earnings to invest in the United 
States.
    In 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited a stagnant 
economy and a tax code that featured 16 brackets, with a top 
rate of 70 percent. When he left office in 1989, the tax code 
had been simplified down to just three brackets, with a top 
rate of 28 percent. Reagan's tax reforms proved to be a 
cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom that occurred in 
the decade during his presidency and continued in the decade 
that followed.
    Over time, additional brackets, credits, carve-outs and 
lobbyist loopholes have undone the simpler and fairer tax code 
ushered in by the 1986 tax reform. In the last 10 years alone, 
there have been nearly 4,500 changes made to the tax code. The 
current version for individuals has six brackets, with a top 
rate of 35 percent (which is set to climb to over 40 percent 
after the end of 2012, when hidden rates are considered). 
Individuals react negatively toward the tax code partly because 
it is complex and attempts to steer them toward certain 
activities and away from others. In addition, there are always 
a few ``surprises'' that end up raising their tax bills. One 
such surprise--the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)--was initially 
designed to hit only the very highest-income taxpayers but now 
ensnares a growing number of middle-class households because of 
a flawed design.
    This budget affirmatively rejects President Obama's efforts 
to raise tax rates on small businesses and investors and to add 
new loopholes to the tax code for favored interests. Economic 
theory and analysis show that increasing marginal tax rates--
tax increases that reduce incentives to work, save and invest 
that next dollar of income--reduces economic output. By 
contrast, reductions in marginal tax rates increase output, 
mainly by letting people keep more of each dollar they earn and 
thereby strengthening incentives to work, produce, and invest 
in the future. The House plan both realizes the job-promoting 
benefits of lower rates and ensures these reductions are 
revenue neutral through base broadening.
    Unlike President Obama's proposal, the House plan would not 
penalize the nearly three quarters of America's small 
businesses that file taxes as individuals by imposing higher 
individual rates that make it harder for these vital 
enterprises to compete. As President Obama repeatedly says, 
small businesses have been responsible for two-thirds of the 
jobs created in the United States over the past 15 years, yet 
he often neglects to point out that roughly 50 percent of 
small-business profits are taxed at the top two individual tax 
rates. Raising these rates means increasing taxes on the most 
successful job creators.
    Raising taxes on capital is another idea that purports to 
affect the wealthy but actually hurts all participants in the 
economy. Mainstream economics, not to mention common sense, 
teaches that raising taxes on any activity generally results in 
less of it. Economics and common sense also teach that the size 
of a nation's capital stock--the pool of saved money available 
for investment and job creation--has an effect on employment, 
productivity, and wages. Tax reform should promote savings and 
investment because more savings and more investment mean a 
larger stock of capital available for job creation. That means 
more jobs, more productivity, and higher wages for all American 
workers.
    The negative effects of high tax rates on work, savings and 
investment are compounded when a large mix of exemptions, 
deductions and credits are added to the system. These tax 
preferences are similar to government spending--instead of 
markets directing economic resources to their most efficient 
uses, the government directs resources to politically favored 
uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation.
    In the worst cases, these tax subsidies literally take the 
form of spending through the tax code, because they take taxes 
paid by hardworking Americans and issue government checks to 
individuals and corporations who do not owe any taxes at all. 
In fact, President Obama's corporate tax ``reform'' framework 
would expand this practice by transferring taxes paid by 
middle-income Americans to the pockets of politically favored 
industries.
    Eliminating large tax subsidies would not be for the 
purpose of increasing total tax revenues. Instead, when offset 
by lower rates, it would have a doubly positive impact on the 
economy--it would stop diverting economic resources to less 
productive uses, while making possible the lower tax rates that 
provide greater incentives for economic growth.
    There is an emerging bipartisan consensus for tax reform 
that lowers tax rates, broadens the tax base, and promotes 
growth and job creation. President Reagan's tax reforms 
inaugurated an era of great prosperity. It is time to build 
upon his leadership and advance a fundamental reform of the 
broken tax code as a critical step in rebuilding the 
foundations for economic growth: spending restraint, reasonable 
and predictable regulations, sound money, and a simple tax code 
with low rates.
                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Ways and Means,
                                     Washington, DC, March 1, 2012.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Last year's budget resolution provided 
the initial outlines of the Ways & Means Committee's agenda for 
tax reform. The Committee intends to build on the significant 
work it undertook over the last year to advance tax reform and 
believes that the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2013 should 
reflect the progress that has been made and the work the 
Committee intends to undertake this year. Therefore, the 
Committee is expanding on the discussion of tax reform 
contained in the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2012. The 
Committee is transmitting the attached paper as our 
recommendation for inclusion in the Budget Resolution for 
Fiscal Year 2013.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Dave Camp,
                                                          Chairman.

                         PRO-GROWTH TAX REFORM

    The American tax system should be simple, efficient and 
fair to promote innovation and sustained job creation in the 
private sector. The current U.S. tax code fails on all these 
fronts. The system is notoriously complex, as individuals, 
families and employers spend over six billion hours and over 
$160 billion per year trying to negotiate a labyrinth of 
deductions and credits, a tangle of different rules for 
characterizing income, and a variety of schedules for taxing 
that income. Simply put, the code is too costly and too 
burdensome and is hindering job creation.
    The U.S. tax system is highly inefficient, as tax 
considerations rather than economic fundamentals often distort 
individual decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to 
slower economic growth. For example, on April 1, 2012, the 
United States will achieve the dubious distinction of having 
the highest corporate tax rate (federal and state combined) in 
the developed world--a factor that discourages employers and 
investors from locating in the United States. Furthermore, the 
United States has become an outlier in that it still uses a 
``worldwide'' system of taxation. That system has not been 
substantially reformed in 50 years--when the United States 
accounted for half of global economic output and had no serious 
competitors around the world. This combination of the highest 
corporate tax rate with an antiquated ``worldwide'' system 
subjects American companies to double taxation when they 
attempt to compete with foreign companies in overseas markets 
and then reinvest their earnings in the United States.
    The code is also patently unfair. It is littered with 
lobbyist loopholes that benefit narrow special interests. 
Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and 
losers based on which industry is politically popular or 
powerful. Nor should two families in similar circumstances pay 
very different tax bills based on which has the better 
accountant. A tax code that leads to such results violates the 
fundamental American principle of equal justice.
    This budget starts with the proposition that first, 
Congress must do no harm. It assumes that Congress will not 
allow massive, across-the-board tax increases to hit the 
economy in 2013, when current law calls for the tax cuts that 
were first enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire. And it assumes 
that Congress will not let the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)--
originally designed to catch a handful of super-wealthy 
households who paid no federal income tax--ensnare tens of 
millions of middle-class American families. This budget then 
attacks all three of the problems described above with a set of 
fundamental reforms designed to lower tax rates, broaden the 
tax base, and reform the U.S. international tax rules, while 
getting rid of distortions, loopholes and preferences that 
divert economic resources from their most efficient uses.
    Following the unveiling of these principles in last year's 
budget resolution, an overwhelming consensus has emerged that 
the country is in dire need of tax reform that lowers rates, 
broadens the tax base, and addresses global competitiveness. 
After three years, the Administration also has begun to 
recognize the need for tax reform. The outline for corporate 
tax reform released by the Administration in February, however, 
falls woefully short: the rates are too high; the tax base is 
too narrow (and used as a tool to provide political favors); 
and the international reforms are anti-competitive.
    By contrast, the principles of reform outlined in this 
budget ensure a simpler, fairer tax code not just for large 
corporations but for small businesses and American families as 
well. Unlike the Administration's plan, it improves the 
competitiveness of American workers and businesses in the 
global economy. Our trading partners have already reformed 
their tax systems to provide their companies with a competitive 
advantage. Competing in a 21st century global economy requires 
that we do the same.
Simplifying the Tax Code and Promoting Job Creation and Economic Growth
Major proposals
    
 Reject the President's call to raise taxes.
    
 Consolidate the current six individual income tax 
brackets into just two brackets of 10 and 25 percent.
    
 Reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.
    
 Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
    
 Broaden the tax base to maintain revenue at the 
appropriate level designated by this budget resolution for the 
next ten years, and at a share of the economy consistent with 
historical norms of 18 to 19 percent in the following decades. 
These are levels compatible with growth, and--if the spending 
restraints in this budget are enacted--sufficient to fund 
government operations over time.
    
 Shift from a ``worldwide'' system of taxation to a 
``territorial'' tax system that puts American companies and 
their workers on a level playing field with foreign competitors 
and ends the ``lock-out effect'' that discourages companies 
from bringing back foreign earnings to invest in the United 
States.
    In 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited a stagnant 
economy and a tax code that featured 16 brackets, with a top 
rate of 70 percent. When he left office in 1989, the tax code 
had been simplified down to just three brackets, with a top 
rate of 28 percent. Reagan's tax reforms proved to be a 
cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom that occurred in 
the decade during his presidency and continued in the decade 
that followed.
    Over time, additional brackets, credits, carve-outs and 
lobbyist loopholes have undone the simpler and fairer tax code 
ushered in by the 1986 tax reform. In the last ten years alone, 
there have been nearly 4,500 changes made to the tax code. The 
current version for individuals has six brackets, with a top 
rate of 35 percent (which is set to climb to over 40 percent 
after the end of 2012, when hidden rates are considered). 
Individuals react negatively toward the tax code partly because 
it is complex and attempts to steer them toward certain 
activities and away from others. In addition, there are always 
a few ``surprises'' that end up raising their tax bills. One 
such surprise--the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)--was initially 
designed to hit only the very highest-income taxpayers but now 
ensnares a growing number of middle-class households because of 
a flawed design.
    The House plan affirmatively rejects President Obama's 
efforts to raise tax rates on small businesses and investors 
and to add new loopholes to the tax code for favored interests. 
Economic theory and analysis show that increasing marginal tax 
rates--tax increases that reduce incentives to work, save and 
invest that next dollar of income--reduces economic output. By 
contrast, reductions in marginal tax rates increase output, 
mainly by letting people keep more of each dollar they earn and 
thereby strengthening incentives to work, produce, and invest 
in the future. The House plan both realizes the job-promoting 
benefits of lower rates and ensures these reductions are 
revenue neutral through base broadening.
    Unlike President Obama's proposal, the House plan would not 
penalize the nearly three quarters of America's small 
businesses that file taxes as individuals by imposing higher 
individual rates that make it harder for these vital 
enterprises to compete. As President Obama repeatedly says, 
small businesses have been responsible for two-thirds of the 
jobs created in the United States over the past 15 years, and 
almost 50 percent of small-business profits are taxed at the 
top two rates. Raising these rates means increasing taxes on 
the most successful job creators.
    Raising taxes on capital is another idea that purports to 
affect the wealthy but actually hurts all participants in the 
economy. Mainstream economics, not to mention common sense, 
teaches that raising taxes on any activity generally results in 
less of it. Economics and common sense also teach that the size 
of a nation's capital stock--the pool of saved money available 
for investment and job creation--has an effect on employment, 
productivity, and wages. Tax reform should promote savings and 
investment because more savings and more investment mean a 
larger stock of capital available for job creation. That means 
more jobs, more productivity, and higher wages for all American 
workers.
    The negative effects of high tax rates on work, savings and 
investment are compounded when a large mix of exemptions, 
deductions and credits are added to the system. These tax 
preferences are similar to government spending--instead of 
markets directing economic resources to their most efficient 
uses, the government directs resources to politically favored 
uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation.
    In the worst cases, these tax subsidies literally take the 
form of spending through the tax code, because they take taxes 
paid by hardworking Americans and issue government checks to 
individuals and corporations who do not owe any taxes at all. 
In fact, President Obama's corporate tax ``reform'' framework 
would expand this practice by transferring taxes paid by middle 
class Americans to the pockets of politically favored 
industries.
    Eliminating large tax subsidies would not be for the 
purpose of increasing total tax revenues. Instead, when offset 
by lower rates, it would have a doubly positive impact on the 
economy--it would stop diverting economic resources to less 
productive uses, while making possible the lower tax rates that 
provide greater incentives for economic growth.
    President Reagan's tax reforms inaugurated an era of great 
prosperity. It is time to reclaim his legacy and once again 
enact a fundamental reform of the tax code as the final step in 
rebuilding the foundations for economic growth: spending 
restraint, reasonable and predictable regulations, sound money, 
and a simple tax code with low rates.
                                   Geoff Davis.
                                   David G. Reichert.
                                   Vern Buchanan.
                                   Lynn Jenkins.
                                   Kenny Marchant.
                                   Erik Paulsen.
                                   Patrick J. Tiberi.
                                   Aaron Schock.
                                   Rick Berg.
                                   Adrian Smith.
                                   Peter J. Roskam.
                                   Jim Gerlach.
                                   Tom Price.
                                   Kevin Brady.
                                   Charles W. Boustany, Jr.
                                   Wally Herger.
                                   Tom Reed.
                                   Diane Black.
                                   Sam Johnson.
                                   Devin Nunes.
                    Reprioritizing Sequester Savings

                              ----------                              


    Last year, as the nation approached the statutory limit on 
how much it could legally borrow, the Obama administration 
asked Congress for a ``clean piece of legislation'' to increase 
the government's legal borrowing authority without any spending 
cuts to match.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Brian Patrick, ``Debt Limit Tick Tock,'' Blog Update, Office of 
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, August 1, 2011. http://majorityleader.gov/
blog/2011/08/debt-limit-tick-tock.html. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House Republicans refused to give the President the blank 
check he requested. Instead, Speaker of the House John Boehner 
insisted that any increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied 
by a greater amount of spending reduction. Speaker Boehner made 
clear on May 9, 2011 that, ``Without significant spending cuts 
and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit 
increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying 
increase in debt authority the President is given.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Remarks by House Speaker John Boehner. Economic Club of New 
York. May 9, 2011. http://www.speaker.gov/News/
DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=240370. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once it became clear that Congress would not rubber-stamp 
his requested increase in the debt ceiling, President Obama 
announced that he would not accept a debt-ceiling deal that did 
not include large tax increases on American families and 
businesses.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Patrick, ``Debt Limit Tick Tock.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House Republicans succeeded in protecting hardworking 
taxpayers by preventing the President from securing a bill 
containing tax hikes. Instead, a bipartisan agreement was 
forged to achieve savings from limits on discretionary spending 
and to set in motion a framework to achieve additional savings. 
The Budget Control Act of 2011 [BCA] paired a $2.1 trillion 
increase in the public debt limit with equivalent deficit 
reduction over the ensuing 10 years.
    The BCA called for deficit reduction in three phases:
    1. First, it established caps on discretionary spending, 
achieving approximately $917 billion in savings over 10 years.
    2. Second, it established and called upon a Joint Select 
Committee on Deficit Reduction (JSCDR) to produce legislation 
with at least an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.
    3. Third, it established an automatic sequestration process 
to force spending reductions in the event the JSCDR did not 
produce a deficit-reduction bill or Congress refused to pass 
it. This ``sequester'' would result in immediate discretionary 
spending reductions effective January 2, 2013.
    Understanding each component of the BCA is critical to 
understanding the fiscal impact of the law as a whole. The 
BCA's pre-sequester spending caps reduced discretionary 
spending for fiscal year 2013 to a maximum of $1.047 trillion. 
Some, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are still 
insisting that House Republicans are obligated to pass fiscal 
year 2013 spending bills at these levels.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Naftali Bendavid, ``Fight Breaks Out Over 2013 Budget Cuts,'' 
Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/
2012/03/14/fight-breaks-out-over-2013-budget-cuts/. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But Congress is no longer operating in a pre-sequester 
world. Last November, the JSCDR announced that it could not 
reach agreement on a deficit-reduction bill by the statutorily 
required deadline, thus triggering the sequester. Congress is 
now operating in a post-sequester world one in which 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 2013 is capped at $949 
billion, and defense spending will be cut by $55 billion, or 10 
percent, in January 2013 unless Congress acts to replace this 
sequester by reprioritizing the savings.
    These cuts would be devastating to America's defense 
capabilities. Leaders of both parties agree that sequester 
savings should be reprioritized. On August 4, 2011, then-
director of the Office of Management and Budget (now White 
House Chief of Staff) Jack Lew wrote that the sequester was not 
intended to be implemented: ``Make no mistake: the sequester is 
not meant to be policy. Rather, it is meant to be an 
unpalatable option that all parties want to avoid.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Jack Lew, ``Security Spending in the Deficit Agreement,'' 
August 4, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/04/security-
spending-deficit-agreement (accessed March 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the JSCDR's failure, the President issued a veto 
threat against legislation overturning the sequester unless 
offset. The President called on Congress to develop an 
alternative:
    The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if 
Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to 
reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. That's exactly 
what they need to do. That's the job they promised to do. And 
they've still got a year to figure it out.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Statement by the President on the Supercommittee, November 21, 
2011, the White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/
11/21/statement-president-supercommittee. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction

    While both parties have expressed their desire to avoid the 
consequences of the sequester, there is profound disagreement 
over how. This disagreement was evident in the JSCDR's failure 
to produce a deficit-reduction bill last year.
    Despite the good-faith effort on the part of committee 
Republicans to avoid the sequester (and, by extension, to avoid 
its disproportionate impact on defense), the negotiations 
exposed a fundamental lack of seriousness by some in Washington 
regarding the need to control government spending and address 
the structural drivers of the debt. As JSCDR Co-Chairman Jeb 
Hensarling made clear, Democrats on the committee ``were 
unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax 
hikes--and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our 
health care entitlements on a permanently sustainable 
basis.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Hensarling, Jeb. ``Why the Super Committee Failed,'' Wall 
Street Journal, November 22, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970204531404577052240098105190.html. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee Democrats refused to address the problem, so the 
problem remains. Therefore, the immediate question of how to 
reprioritize sequester savings--and the larger challenge of 
averting a debt-fueled economic crisis--have become central to 
this year's budget debate during this year's budget season.

                The President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget

    The President's fiscal year 2013 budget calls on Congress 
to replace the sequester, but it does not make a specific 
proposal to turn the sequester off. It assumes that the 
sequester does not occur, but it does not lay out a specific 
path forward to avoid its consequences. The President's budget 
includes tax increases and spending cuts (including a $487 
billion reduction in defense spending), which it claims are 
enough to offset the sequester--but it includes a net spending 
increase that consumes nearly all of its claimed deficit 
reduction.
    This approach is deeply flawed, for three reasons. First, 
it imposes a net tax increase on American families and 
businesses of $2.0 trillion. Washington's fiscal imbalance is 
overwhelmingly driven by runaway spending, not insufficient tax 
revenue, and reducing the deficit by taking more from 
hardworking Americans would simply slow the economy, reduce job 
opportunities, and ultimately prove counterproductive as a 
deficit-reduction strategy.
    Second, despite the large tax increase, the President's 
budget also contains a net spending increase of $1.4 trillion, 
for a total of only $605 billion in deficit reduction. The rest 
of the President's deficit-reduction claims are based on 
discredited budget gimmicks, including almost $1 trillion in 
``savings'' that come from projecting current wartime spending 
in Iraq and Afghanistan out for the next 10 years, then 
proposing not to spend that money, even though it was never 
requested and never going to be spent.
    And third, much of the President's actual spending 
reduction comes from cutting too deeply into the Defense 
Department. Although the President's budget does not cut 
defense as deeply as the sequester would, these cuts would 
still jeopardize the capability of the U.S. military.

                     The Senate's Lack of a Budget

    It has been three years since the Senate passed a budget, 
and the legal deadline for passing a congressional budget 
resolution this year is fast approaching. Yet there has been no 
indication that Senator Reid plans to put forward an 
alternative plan for prioritizing spending, much less for 
averting the sequester. Instead, he continues to insist that 
Congress is still operating in a pre-sequester world, even 
though the President's own budget admits that ``the sequester 
was triggered and will take effect in January 2013 if no action 
is taken.''\16\ Senator Reid's approach has been the very 
definition of inaction. There is a better way forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\``Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government,'' Office of 
Management and Budget, February 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/ budget.pdf. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    The Path to Prosperity Approach:

              Reprioritize Savings Through Reconciliation

    This budget reprioritizes sequester savings to focus on the 
problem, which is government spending, and to protect national 
security from deep and indiscriminate cuts. It achieves these 
goals by giving six House committees reconciliation 
instructions to produce actual legislation that achieves the 
sequester savings without the haphazard cuts that the sequester 
entails.
How Reconciliation Works
    The 1974 Budget Act provides Congress with a special 
procedure to give expedited consideration to bills enacting the 
spending, revenue, and debt policies contained in the budget 
resolution. To trigger these expedited procedures, the budget 
resolution must include reconciliation instructions calling on 
specific committees to achieve specified amounts of savings in 
programs within their jurisdictions. The committees choose 
which programs to address and which policies to adopt.
Reconciliation in the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution
    This budget gives reconciliation instructions to six 
committees Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial 
Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways 
and Means that in aggregate would produce at least $18.5 
billion of deficit reduction in the first year, $129.1 billion 
over the first five years, and $331.4 billion over the first 10 
years.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Because there is overlapping jurisdiction for some of these 
committees and the same savings are reconciled to more than one 
committee, the net savings amount to $18.4 billion in the first year, 
$116.3 billion over five years, and $261.5 billion over 10 years. 
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Ultimately, the committees will be responsible for 
determining how to meet their reconciliation instructions. But 
savings could be achieved in the areas of making pensions for 
federal workers more like those for workers in the private 
sector, repealing recent expansions of the federal role in 
financial services, saving money in health care, means-testing 
entitlements, and reforming the medical liability system.
    This budget provides a clear solution that would be 
implemented quickly to replace the sequester. It does so by 
using an expedited procedure to reduce lower-priority spending. 
This solution would cut through the gridlock in Washington to 
start eliminating excessive autopilot spending immediately. It 
would protect taxpayers, and it would shield the U.S. military 
from a crippling, 10 percent across-the-board reduction in its 
funding.
    Unfortunately, the House cannot unilaterally implement this 
solution--and the Senate Democratic leadership's only plan has 
been to oppose solutions put forward in the House. U.S. troops 
and their families should not have to suffer because the 
Democratic Party's leaders refuse to lead. House Republicans 
will continue to show a way forward by directly addressing the 
nation's most urgent fiscal and economic challenges. It is not 
too late for Americans to choose a better path.
                      The Long-Term Budget Outlook

                              ----------                              


    As noted previously, the Federal budget trends of the next 
10 years, daunting as they are, reflect only the first surge of 
spending and debt that threaten the government's fiscal 
stability and the economy's potential for growth. Beyond that 
budget window, conditions continue to worsen, driven by 
unsustainable rates of spending growth and promises of 
government benefits that cannot be kept. Therefore, Congress 
must examine the longer-term effects of its fiscal policy 
choices.
    The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has conducted such an 
analysis of the policies in this budget.\18\ It shows that the 
reforms outlined in this proposal would put the Federal budget 
on the path to balance and the American economy on the path to 
prosperity. The discussion below describes these long-term 
effects and compares them to those likely to result from the 
President's budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See CBO's Long-Term Analysis of a Budget Proposal by Chairman 
Ryan: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-
Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Government Spending

    Under the President's budget, as re-estimated by CBO, the 
Federal Government will spend $45.4 trillion over the next 
decade. Government spending runs at record post-World War II 
levels, never falling below 22.5 percent of the economy in this 
decade.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\``An Analysis of the President's 2013 Budget,'' Congressional 
Budget Office, March 2012.  http://cbo.gov/publication/43083. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond that point, the President's budget not only fails to 
curb the unsustainable spending trajectory--it makes matters 
worse. According to the Office of Management and Budget's 
``Analytical Perspectives'' for the President's fiscal year 
2013 budget, the President's path allows the Federal 
Government's fiscal position to ``gradually deteriorate'' after 
2022.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\``Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government: Analytical 
Perspectives,'' Office of Management and Budget, February 2012. http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/
spec.pdf. 
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    CBO has not directly estimated the long-term impact of the 
President's budget. But the ``alternative fiscal scenario'' 
presented in CBO's The Long-Term Budget Outlook (June 2011) is 
similar, but not identical to the President's policy.\21\ (The 
alternative fiscal scenario differs from CBO's standard 
``current law baseline'' projection. The current law baseline 
assumes that everything scheduled to occur in law--including 
significant changes in spending or tax laws, such as a lapse of 
the 2001 and 2003 tax rates--will occur as expected. The 
alternative fiscal scenario, by contrast, assumes Congress will 
continue various spending and tax policies that it has 
generally extended in the past.) Under this alternative fiscal 
scenario projection, CBO estimates mandatory spending will soon 
crowd out all other priorities in the Federal budget. Borrowing 
and spending by the public sector will crowd out investment and 
growth in the private sector. In the years ahead, government 
spending will skyrocket to record levels that a free economy 
simply cannot sustain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\See the CBO June 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook at http://
cbo.gov/publication/41486 for a description of the Alternative Fiscal 
Scenario. [GPO: Insert Figure 3 here]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    This budget, The Path to Prosperity, charts a brighter 
future. With responsible spending cuts now and structural 
reforms of government spending programs going forward, the 
budget ensures government spending remains on a sustainable 
path. Government spending will fall to its post-war historical 
norm of 20 percent of the economy by 2015. Within this fiscal 
restraint, the budget nevertheless maintains or increases 
funding levels for government's core responsibilities and 
advance national priorities--albeit at a more sustainable rate. 
As the economy grows, government spending as a share of the 
economy will steadily recede over the decades ahead.

                                Deficits

    When he first took office, the President promised to cut 
the deficit in half by the end of his term. Four straight 
trillion-dollar deficits later, he hasn't even come close. His 
latest budget projects a deficit of $1.3 trillion for fiscal 
year 2012 and a deficit near $1 trillion for fiscal year 2013. 
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    By contrast, this budget charts a sustainable path going 
forward, ultimately erasing the entire budget deficit. It 
brings the deficit below $800 billion in fiscal year 2013. 
Relative to the President's budget, it reduces the deficit by 
$3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. And based on CBO 
estimates, it reaches balance in the years ahead, produces 
surpluses, and ultimately pays down the debt.
    This budget gets the deficit below 1 percent of GDP by 
2016. By contrast, under the status quo, as measured by the 
alternative fiscal scenario, the annual deficit would grow to 
nearly 15.5 percent of the entire U.S. economy by 2035.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                                  Debt

    By continuing Washington's spending spree, the President's 
budget adds $8.7 trillion to debt held by the public over the 
next decade. Publicly held debt as a share of the economy would 
increase from 68 percent to 76 percent--well past the level 
that economists warn is the tipping point for a fiscal crisis. 
After that, by his budget's long-term projections, the publicly 
held debt would surge past 100 percent of GDP and continue to 
climb in the years ahead. Under the alternative fiscal 
scenario, which uses a more realistic baseline of current 
policies, CBO projects publicly held debt as a share of the 
economy to reach 96 percent of the economy in 2023, 128 percent 
in 2030, and 194 percent in 2040.
    The CBO has warned that ``Growing debt also would increase 
the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which 
investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to 
manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its 
ability to borrow at affordable rates.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\June 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Path to Prosperity lifts the crushing burden of debt, 
making it possible for the economy to grow and for Americans to 
prosper. This budget would cut trillions of dollars from the 
debt relative to the current path in every year of CBO's long-
term analysis. In 2023, the debt would be more than 36 percent 
lower than would be the case under the status quo; 59 percent 
less in 2030; and 80 percent less in 2040. By 2050, this budget 
would reduce debt relative to the size of the economy to only 
10 percent and keep the nation on the path to a debt-free 
future.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                     Section-by-Section Description

                              ----------                              


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

SECTION 1. THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

    Subsection (a), in as required by section 301(a) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
establishes the levels for fiscal year 2013, and each of the 
nine years following the budget year, fiscal years 2014 through 
2022.
    For fiscal year 2013, the concurrent resolution on the 
budget reported by the Committee on the Budget establishes a 
ceiling on spending and a floor on revenue. Under the terms of 
section 301 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974, this report sets an allocation of budget authority 
and outlays to the Committee on Appropriations of the House. 
That committee in turn suballocates that amount to its twelve 
subcommittees for spending on the various programs, projects 
and activities with the jurisdiction of the subcommittees.
    Allocations are also given to authorizing committees, those 
committees with spending authority, though in addition to the 
fiscal year 2013 allocation to the Appropriations Committee, 
these authorizing committees may not spend more than the 
allocation for the budget year and over the 10-year period 
provided for by the concurrent resolution on the budget.
    Subsection (b) sets out the table of contents of the 
resolution.

                  Title I--Spending and Revenue Levels

                    SECTION 101. LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

                   SECTION 102. FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES

    As further required by section 301(a) of the Budget Act, 
this section establishes the appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal year 2013, and for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 
2022.
    The functional categories are as follows:
          050 National Defense
          150 International Affairs
          250 General Science, Space, and Technology
          270 Energy
          300 Natural Resources and Environment
          350 Agriculture
          370 Commerce and Housing Credit
          400 Transportation
          450 Community and Regional Development
          500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
        Services
          550 Health
          570 Medicare
          600 Income Security
          650 Social Security
          700 Veterans Benefits and Services
          750 Administration of Justice
          800 General Government
          900 Net Interest
          920 Allowances
          950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
          970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
        Terrorism and Related Activities

                        Title II--Reconciliation

      SECTION 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    As permitted by section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, this concurrent resolution on the budget includes 
reconciliation instructions to specified committees of the 
House. These instructions require those committees to submit 
legislative text to amend laws in their jurisdictions to 
achieve an amount of deficit reduction by a certain date. The 
various committee recommendations are submitted to the 
Committee on the Budget, which then binds them together and 
votes whether to report the resulting bill to the House. The 
Committee on the Budget may only report the legislation 
submitted to it. The Committee may not make any substantive 
changes.
    Section 201(a) directs six authorizing committees to 
transmit changes in programs within their jurisdiction to the 
Committee on the Budget by April 27, 2012.
    Section 201(b) provides that the committees instructed to 
submit legislative language to the Committee on the Budget are 
as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on 
Energy and the Commerce, the Committee on the Financial 
Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on Ways and 
Means. (See reconciliation instructions for each committee in 
Table 9.)
    The reconciliation instructions in this concurrent 
resolution instruct each committee to reduce the deficit by a 
specified amount. Deficits are calculated by the net effect of 
changes in outlays and revenue a measure may make.
    Though the committees receiving instructions determine the 
policy and program changes, outlay savings must be in the 
direct spending category. For instance, a reduction in an 
authorization level for spending subject to annual 
appropriations is categorized as authorizing future 
discretionary spending and would not be estimated as producing 
direct spending savings as the reconciliation process requires. 
In addition, clause 7 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives prohibits the consideration of a concurrent 
resolution on the budget that includes instructions for a 
reconciliation bill that has the net effect of increasing 
outlays.
    Similarly, the committee receiving reconciliation 
instructions determines the policy as to how revenue changes 
are made. A submission to the Committee on the Budget may 
increase or decrease revenue, depending on the instruction.
    The committees determine the changes in law necessary to 
achieve the specified amount of deficit reduction for the 
period of fiscal years 2012 through 2013, for the period of 
fiscal years 2012 through 2017, and for the period of fiscal 
years 2012 through 2022.

 SECTION 202. DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE HOUSE OF 
                            REPRESENTATIVES

    Section 202(a) directs the Committee on the Budget to 
report a bill with the directives described in subsection (b).
    Subsection (b) sets out guidelines for the legislation the 
concurrent resolution directs the Committee on the Budget to 
report. Those guidelines include replacing the sequestration 
required under section 251A of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
    The reforms included in the measure the Committee on the 
Budget is directed to report only take effect upon enactment of 
the reconciliation bill referred to in section 201.

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

          SECTION 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING

    This section sets out recommended budgetary levels for 
certain budget aggregates for each of fiscal years 2030, 2040, 
and 2050 as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the 
United States as follows:
Federal Revenues
          Fiscal Year 2030: 19 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 19 percent
          Fiscal Year 2050: 19 percent
Budget Outlays
          Fiscal Year 2030: 20.25 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 18.75 percent
          Fiscal Year 2050: 16 percent
Deficit
          Fiscal Year 2030: 1.25 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: -.25 percent
          Fiscal Year 2050: -3 percent
Debt Held by the Public
          Fiscal Year 2030: 53 percent
          Fiscal Year 2040: 38 percent
          Fiscal Year 2050: 10 percent

                        Title IV--Reserve Funds

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

    This section 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 
enforcement levels for a measure that repeals 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). Those measures are the health care bills enacted 
into law in 2010.

 SECTION 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH 
                      RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM

    This section permits the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided 
to applicable committees and to adjust other budgetary 
enforcement levels in this resolution for a measure amending or 
superseding the system for updating payments under section 1848 
of the Social Security Act, as long as the measure is deficit-
neutral for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

     SECTION 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES

    This section 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 of this concurrent 
resolution if the measure would not increase the deficit over 
fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
    This concurrent resolution on the budget allows for a 
certain amount of revenue loss from projected levels, but only 
for the policies specified in section 503. This section allows 
additional net revenue reductions for a measure not specified 
in that section if it decreases outlays by the same amount over 
the ten-year period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

   SECTION 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND 
                                SCHOOLS

    This section provides for a reserve fund that accommodates 
legislation making changes to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act 
of 1976 (Public Law 94-565), or that reauthorizes the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 
106-393), to the extent the legislation does not increase the 
deficit or direct spending in fiscal year 2013, fiscal years 
2013 through 2017, or fiscal years 2013 through 2022. These 
laws provide economic assistance to States and counties 
containing National Forest System lands and public domain lands 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management for the benefit of 
public schools, roads, and other purposes.

 SECTION 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                            REAUTHORIZATION

    This section allows the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to revise the levels of the resolution for any measure 
that reauthorizes surface transportation programs so long as 
such measure maintains the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund 
and is deficit-neutral for the period of fiscal years 2013 
through 2022.

                      Title V--Budget Enforcement

                  SECTION 501. ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

    Subsection (a) establishes a point of order against 
providing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, unless they fall 
into certain specified exceptions. Under this rule, advance 
appropriations are allowed for fiscal years following that 
fiscal year.
    Subsection (b) provides for the list of excepted programs 
that may receive advance appropriations. Those accounts are 
referred to in this report in the section designated as 
``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations.''
    Subsection (c) specifically sets a limit on the amount of 
total allowable advance appropriations for fiscal year 2014.
    It allows advance appropriations of up to $54.462 billion 
for fiscal year 2014 for Veterans Medical Services, Veterans 
Medical Support and Compliance, and Veterans Medical Facilities 
accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
    It also allows up to $28.852 billion for other programs 
named in this report.
    Subsection (d) defines advance appropriations as any new 
discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint 
resolution making general or continuing appropriations for 
fiscal year 2014.

                 SECTION 502. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

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

         SECTION 503. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES AND ALLOCATIONS

    This section sets out a special enforcement procedure for 
measures reducing revenue. This concurrent resolution on the 
budget sets out a revenue floor as required by section 
301(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Normally, 
any measure affecting revenue that causes revenue levels to be 
below that floor would be subject to a point of order. This 
section establishes a special adjustment process for certain 
revenue measures that may cause a net revenue loss relative to 
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, but the 
aggregate level of revenue loss caused by those specified 
measures may not drop the level below the revenue floor.
    Subsection (a) states that the baseline revenue levels for 
enforcing this concurrent resolution are those contained in the 
March 2012 CBO baseline. Hence any measure decreasing revenue 
relative to that baseline violates the terms of the concurrent 
resolution unless specifically listed in subsection (b).
    Subsection (b) specifies the revenue measures allowed to 
cause revenue loss relative to the above mentioned CBO baseline 
and permits the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to make 
adjustments to aggregates and allocations of the concurrent 
resolution for their budgetary effects:
          
 Extending the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
        Reconciliation Act of 2001
          
 Extending the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
        Reconciliation Act of 2003
          
 Adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax 
        exemption amounts to prevent a larger number of 
        taxpayers as compared with tax year 2008 from being 
        subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax or of allowing 
        the use of nonrefundable personal credits against the 
        Alternative Minimum Tax, or both as applicable
          
 Extending the estate, gift, and generation-
        skipping transfer tax provisions of Title III of the 
        Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and 
        Job Creation Act of 2010
          
 Establishing a 20 percent deduction in 
        income to small businesses
          
 Establishing or amending trade agreements
          
 Repealing the tax increases in the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care 
        and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010
          
 Reforming the tax code and lowering tax 
        rates
          
 Reforming the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act [PPACA] and the Health Care and 
        Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 
        [HERA], which allows a revenue adjustment, but only to 
        the extent measures are deficit neutral in the fiscal 
        years 2013 through 2022. To the extent revenue 
        increases are used to achieve deficit neutrality during 
        this period, those revenue raisers may only be either 
        (or both):
          (1) Repealing the individual mandate included in 
        PPACA/HERA;
          (2) Modifying the subsidies to purchase health 
        insurance as set in PPACA/HERA.
    It is the intent of this concurrent resolution on the 
budget that measures which extend the Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 are for provisions included 
in those laws as originally enacted.
    The subparagraph providing for adjustments related to tax 
reform is intended for comprehensive tax reform. Comprehensive 
tax reform includes those reforms outlined in the letter from 
Representative Dave Camp, Chair of the Ways and Means Committee 
to Representative Paul Ryan, Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget dated March 1, 2012.
    Subsection (c) sets out a procedure to facilitate the 
consideration of legislation subjecting direct spending to 
annual appropriations. Under current law, there are impediments 
to changing direct spending to discretionary spending since if 
the former is eliminated, the purpose of spending is also 
eliminated on the direct spending side of the budget. Under 
current practice, if the intent is to preserve the purpose, but 
authorize the program and subject it to annual appropriations, 
the Committee on Appropriations would have to find additional 
resources within its section 302(a) allocation (as required to 
be set in the report on the budget resolution by section 
301(e)(2)(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974).
    Under the terms of this subsection, should an authorizing 
committee want to retain the purpose of a direct spending 
program, but determines it should be subject to annual 
appropriations, it can, at the time it eliminates the direct 
spending, authorize appropriations for the program. If that 
elimination of the direct spending and authorization of 
appropriations is enacted, the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget may increase the 302(a) allocation of budgetary 
resources to the Committee on Appropriations by an amount up to 
the authorized level of appropriations for the same purpose in 
fiscal year 2013.
    This rule effectively holds the Committee on Appropriations 
harmless if it appropriates money under the terms of that 
authorization because the allocation under section 302(a) set 
in this report is adjusted.
    Subsection (d) specifies that the chair of the Committee on 
the Budget makes the determinations of the levels and 
adjustments provided for in this concurrent resolution on the 
budget.

       SECTION 504. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM INCREASES IN SPENDING

    Subsection (a) establishes a point of order against the 
consideration of measures increasing direct spending by $5 
billion or more for any 10-year period within 40 years starting 
in fiscal year 2023.
    Subsection (b) explains that there are four consecutive 
ten-year periods as referred to in subsection (a) which would 
be as follows:
          Fiscal years 2023 through 2032;
          Fiscal years 2033 through 2042;
          Fiscal years 2043 through 2052;
          Fiscal years 2053 through 2062.

        SECTION 505. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS

    Subsection (a) provides that the administrative expenses of 
the Social Security Administration and the United States Postal 
Service are reflected in the allocation to the Committee on 
Appropriations. This language is necessary to ensure that the 
Committee on Appropriations retains control of administrative 
expenses through the annual appropriations process.
    Subsection (b) provides for a special rule stating the 
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations of the House is 
enforced under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 using 
estimates of the budgetary effects of a measure and includes 
any off-budget discretionary amounts.
    Subsection (c) allows the Chair of the Committee on the 
Budget to adjust the spending or revenue levels of this 
concurrent resolution for legislation, if reported by the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to reform the 
Federal retirement system. The Chair is permitted to make 
adjustments only if a measure would not cause an increase in 
the deficit in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2013 through 
2022.

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

    Subsection (a) details the allocation and aggregate 
adjustment procedures required to accommodate legislation 
provided for in this resolution. It provides that the 
adjustments apply while the legislation is under consideration 
and take effect upon enactment of the legislation. In addition, 
the subsection requires the adjustments to be printed in the 
Congressional Record.
    Subsection (b) requires, for purposes of enforcement of the 
concurrent resolution, aggregate and allocation levels 
resulting from adjustments made pursuant to the terms of this 
resolution have the same effect as if adopted in the originally 
adopted aggregates and allocations.
    Subsection (c) provides an exemption for legislation for 
which the Chair of the Committee on the Budget has made 
adjustments in the allocations or aggregates of the resolution 
and that complies with this Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget. By such an exemption, such legislation is subject to 
neither the Cut-As-You-Go point of order (clause 10 of rule XXI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives) nor section 504 
of the concurrent resolution on the budget (the long-term 
spending point of order).

           SECTION 507. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES

    Section (a) provides specific authority for the Chair or 
Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget to request a 
supplemental estimate for any program affecting or establishing 
Federal loans or loan guarantees. Under current law, such a 
measure would be scored on a ``net present value'' basis under 
the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act found in Title V of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The supplemental estimate 
would be scored using a ``fair value'' basis which generally 
incorporates a more realistic market risk factor. It also 
allows the Chair of the Committee on the Budget to use the 
supplemental estimate for enforcing compliance with the 
resolution.
    Section (b) provides that any increases in receipts from 
reforms of the National Flood Insurance Program, if included in 
a reconciliation bill considered under the terms of this 
concurrent resolution, are to be used for deficit reduction.

SECTION 508. BUDGET RULE RELATING TO TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF 
      THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC 
                              INDEBTEDNESS

    This section provides that for purposes of budget 
enforcement, transfers of funds from the general fund of the 
Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund are to be counted as new 
budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the 
transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs. This budget 
rule is not relevant for, nor is it applied to, transfers of 
revenue under current law from the general fund to the Highway 
Trust Fund pursuant to Section 9503 of Title 26 of the United 
States Code.

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

    Subsection (a) provides for a separate section 302(a) 
allocation of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and set out 
in this report, to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas 
contingency operations and the global war on terrorism (OCO/
GWOT). For purposes of enforcing section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 the ``first fiscal year'' and 
the ``total fiscal years'' refer to fiscal year 2013 only. The 
separate allocation is the exclusive allocation for OCO/GWOT 
under section 302(a). It states that any provision designated 
as such under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget 
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which raises the 
statutory spending limits by the amount so designated, also 
will be counted toward the separate OCO/GWOT allocation and not 
to the general section 302(a) allocation.
    Subsection (b) provides that the current procedure of 
adjusting the general 302(a) allocation under section 314 of 
the Budget Act is no longer in effect since with the special 
allocation it is not necessary.

               SECTION 510. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS

    Subsection (a) provides for general technical application 
of the legislative text of the resolution.
    Subsection (b) clarifies that certain provisions of H. Res. 
5 (112th Congress) are no longer applicable.

                            Title VI--Policy


               SECTION 601. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE

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

            SECTION 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY

    Subsection (a) sets out findings.
    Subsection (b) states the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget's policy on Social Security.

    SECTION 603. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                  CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    Subsection (a) sets out several 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 the Congress, with the 
assistance of the Government Accountability Office, the 
Inspectors General, and other appropriate agencies should make 
it a high priority to review unobligated balances and identify 
savings for deficit reduction.
    While there is year-to-year variability, unobligated 
balances have generally been trending upwards over the past ten 
years, from $253 billion at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $725 
billion at the end of fiscal year 2011. According to the Office 
of Management and Budget, federal agencies will have an 
estimated $698 billion in unobligated balances at the close of 
fiscal year 2013, though agencies tend to overestimate their 
rate of obligations. Legislation introduced by Dr. Tom Price of 
Georgia (H.R. 1111) would rescind $45 billion in unobligated 
discretionary funds within 60 days of enactment. CBO has 
informally estimated that such a measure could reduce spending 
by approximately $22 billion.
    The large sums of unobligated balances indicate that there 
are major opportunities for savings to reduce the deficit. 
Additional investigation is necessary to determine what portion 
of these anticipated unobligated balances can be cancelled or 
rescinded for deficit reduction without abrogating the Federal 
Government's contractual obligations or reducing or disrupting 
federal commitments under high priority programs and Treasury's 
authority to finance the national debt.
    A reasonable goal would be to reduce unobligated balances 
by 10 percent, excluding Departments of Defense, Treasury, 
Veterans' Affairs, and the Social Security Administration, to 
achieve savings for deficit reduction.

          SECTION 604. POLICY STATEMENT ON WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE

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

                  Title VII--Sense of House Provisions


   SECTION 701. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD 
                          SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

    This sense of the House expresses the sense that the 
authorizing committees are encouraged to ensure that States 
have the resources to collect child support owed to families 
and then to pass 100 percent of support on to families without 
financial penalty.
                    The Congressional Budget Process

                              ----------                              


    The spending and revenue levels established in the budget 
resolution are executed through two parallel, but separate, 
mechanisms: allocations to the appropriations and authorizing 
committees; and, when necessary, reconciliation directives to 
the authorizing committees.
    As required under section 302(a) of the Congressional 
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the discretionary 
spending levels established in the budget resolution are 
allocated to the Appropriations Committee and the direct 
spending levels are allocated to each of the authorizing 
committees with direct spending authority of each House of 
Congress. These allocations appear in the report accompanying 
the budget resolution, and they are enforced through points of 
order (see the section of this report titled: ``Enforcing the 
Budget Resolution''). Amounts provided under ``current law'' 
encompass programs that affect direct spending--entitlements 
and other programs that have spending authority or offsetting 
receipts. Amounts subject to discretionary action refer to 
programs that require subsequent legislation to provide the 
necessary spending authority. Amounts provided under 
``reauthorizations'' reflect amounts assumed to be provided in 
subsequent legislation reauthorizing expiring direct spending 
programs.
    Allocations of budget authority and outlays are provided 
for the budget year (fiscal year 2013), and the 10-year period 
(fiscal years 2013 through 2022). Section 302 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as 
modified by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) requires that 
allocations of budget authority be provided in the report 
accompanying the budget resolution for the 1st fiscal year and 
at least the 4 ensuing fiscal years (except for the Committee 
on Appropriations, which receives an allocation only for the 
budget year).

                      COMMITTEES OF AUTHORIZATION

    The report (or the joint statement of managers in the 
instance of a conference report) accompanying the concurrent 
resolution on the budget allocates to the authorizing 
committees a sum of new budget authority along with the 
attendant outlays required to fund the direct spending within 
their jurisdiction. The committees may be allocated additional 
budget authority should increases in spending be required in 
their jurisdiction. This occurs when the budget resolution 
assumes a new or expanded direct spending program. Such 
spending authority must be provided through subsequent 
legislation and is not controlled through the annual 
appropriations process.
302(a) Allocations
    Because the spending authority for authorizing committees 
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations are established for 
the budget year commencing on October 1, and a 10-year total 
for fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
    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 2013 are measured against the 
level for that year included in the fiscal year 2013 budget 
resolution and also the 10-year period of fiscal year 2013 
through 2022.

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

    The report accompanying the concurrent resolution on the 
budget allocates to the Committee on Appropriations a lump sum 
of discretionary budget authority assumed in the resolution and 
corresponding outlays for a single fiscal year.
302(a) Allocations
    Because the spending authority for authorizing committees 
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations in the budget 
resolution are for the budget year, which is the fiscal year 
2013 which commences on October 1, 2012, and a 10-year total 
for fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
302(b) Allocations
    Once a 302(a) allocation is provided to it by the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for a budget year, the 
Appropriations Committee is required to divide the allocation 
among its subcommittees. Though the number of subcommittees has 
varied over time, for budget year 2013, there are twelve. The 
amount each subcommittee receives constitutes its suballocation 
pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
    Each appropriation bill reported by a subcommittee 
providing budget authority for programs within its jurisdiction 
for the budget year must not breach this 302(b) suballocation. 
The sum of the suballocations must equal the 302(a) allocation 
provided, though an additional 302(b) suballocation may be made 
and assigned to the full Appropriations Committee. This 
additional suballocation must be an amount in the form of a 
positive whole number.
    Under section 302(c) of the Budget Act, Appropriations Acts 
may not be considered on the floor of the House before these 
302(b) suballocations are made.
    The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines a ``budget 
year'' as the fiscal year starting in the calendar year in 
which a session of Congress first meets. Since the second 
session of the 112th Congress first met on January 5, 2012 
(pursuant to Public Law 111-289), for the purposes of this 
concurrent resolution on the budget, the budget year is fiscal 
year 2013.
    In general, bills, conference reports, joint resolutions, 
concurrent resolutions, cease to exist at the end of each 
Congress (in the House of Representatives). When a new Congress 
meets, though, the House extends rules from the previous 
Congress through a simple House Resolution. In this way, the 
Budget Resolution is extended into the new Congress. The budget 
year, thus, may change, but for purposes of enforcement, the 
first fiscal year for the budget resolution remains the same.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                       Enforcing Budgetary Levels

                              ----------                              


                THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

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

                 BUDGET-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE

Clause 7 of Rule XXI
    This clause prohibits the consideration of a concurrent 
resolution on the budget containing reconciliation directives 
(section 310 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974) that would cause a net increase in direct 
spending.
Clause 10 of Rule XXI
    House Resolution 5 established in the Rules of the House of 
Representatives a point of order against any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause a 
net increase in direct spending. The rule, termed ``Cut-as-you-
go,'' prohibits the consideration of legislation that increases 
direct spending over 5 years or 10 years, and requires spending 
increases to be offset by spending decreases over those time 
periods.
Clause 4 of Rule XXIX
    This clause specifies that the Chair of the Committee on 
the Budget is responsible for providing authoritative guidance 
concerning the impact of a legislative propositions related to 
the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending, 
and new entitlement authority.
Section 3 of House Resolution 5 of the 112th Congress
    House Resolution 5 adopted the rules from the 111th 
Congress and incorporated additional provisions related to the 
budget process. This section requires that each general 
appropriations bill contain a ``spending reduction'' account, 
for which the level provided is a recitation of the amount by 
which, through the amendment process, the House has reduced 
spending in other portions of the bill and indicated that such 
savings should be counted toward spending reduction. It 
provides that any other amendment increasing spending must 
include an offset of an equal or greater value.
                             Reconciliation

                              ----------                              


    Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
U.S.C. 641) sets out a special procedure which allows a 
concurrent resolution on the budget to direct any Congressional 
committee to produce legislation that changes budgetary levels. 
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, 
as reported by the Committee on the Budget, provides for such a 
reconciliation bill. The concurrent resolution instructs six 
authorizing committees to transmit changes in law necessary to 
achieve certain direct spending and revenue levels provided for 
in the budget resolution. They must submit legislative text and 
associated material to the Committee on the Budget by April 27, 
2012.
    A committee receiving a reconciliation directive must 
reduce the deficit in the following periods: fiscal years 2012 
and 2013, 2012 through 2017, and 2012 through 2022. A committee 
may reduce the deficit through net reductions in spending or 
net increases in revenue. The committees may achieve the 
deficit reduction specified in any manner they wish for laws 
within their jurisdiction.
    In general, when a committee receives a reconciliation 
directive, it considers a bill to comply with the directive as 
it would any other bill, but the legislative text, along with 
related material, is submitted to the Committee on the Budget 
instead of reported to the House. The Committee on the Budget 
then binds all the submissions together, votes on the combined 
measure, and reports it out of committee as a single bill. The 
committee may not amend the submitted legislative text during 
consideration in committee. It must report the language without 
substantive revision.
    A reconciliation bill is a privileged measure in the 
Senate: As distinct from most Senate bills, it has a time limit 
of twenty hours of debate and does not require the sixty-vote 
supermajority to invoke ``cloture,'' a Senate procedure which 
limits debate on legislation. Hence passage of a reconciliation 
bill in the Senate only requires a simple majority.
    In the Senate, as a limitation on the content of a 
reconciliation bill, a provision that does not increase or 
decrease spending (or revenue) is considered extraneous. If 
found to be extraneous the provision violates section 313 of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, commonly known as the 
``Byrd Rule,'' so named after its author, the late Senator 
Robert C. Byrd (WV). If the provision is found to violate the 
Byrd Rule, it is removed from the bill or conference report 
unless 60 Senators vote to waive the rule.
    The committees receiving reconciliation instructions 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution, and which must submit 
legislative language and related material to the Committee on 
the Budget, are as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial 
Services, the Committee on Judiciary, the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
    As noted above, the reconciled committees determine the 
content of legislation. The reconciliation instructions in this 
concurrent resolution are designed to replace the deficit 
reduction that would result from $78 billion of the $98 billion 
sequestration of discretionary budget authority mandated to 
occur on January 2, 2013. The goal of the instructions is to 
achieve this deficit reduction as rapidly as possible. Due to 
the challenge of achieving mandatory savings quickly and the 
importance of achieving the deficit reduction as quickly as 
possible, the instruction calls on committees to report no 
later than April 27, 2012. The Committee expects the House will 
act promptly on this legislation. In addition, to ensure the 
deficit reduction is achieved rapidly, the instructions include 
the current fiscal year, fiscal year 2012, ending on September 
30, 2012.
    In developing these instructions, the Committee on the 
Budget made certain assumptions, including quick enactment of 
the reconciliation legislation and, based on preliminary 
discussions with the Congressional Budget Office, an effective 
date of July 1, 2012 for the policies contained in the 
reconciliation legislation. The Agriculture Committee, for 
example, is instructed to achieve $8.2 billion in deficit 
reduction for fiscal years 2012-2013. While the Agriculture 
Committee will ultimately determine how to achieve these 
savings, the Committee on the Budget assumed savings from 
repealing expansions enacted in the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) to be effective July 1, 2012.
             Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations

                              ----------                              


  ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

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

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

  ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

            (Subject to a Separate Limit of $54,462,000,000)

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
          VA Medical Services
          VA Medical Support and Compliance
          VA Medical Facilities
                         Votes of the Committee

                              ----------                              


    Clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII requires each committee 
report to accompany any bill or resolution of a public 
character, ordered to include the total number of votes cast 
for and against on each roll call vote, on a motion to report 
and any amendments offered to the measure or matter, together 
with the names of those voting for and against. Listed below 
are the roll call votes taken in the Committee on the Budget on 
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
    On March 21, 2012 the Committee met in open session, a 
quorum being present.
    Mr. Garrett asked unanimous consent that the Chair be 
authorized, consistent with clause 4 of House Rule XVI, to 
declare a recess at any time during the Committee meeting.
    There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
    Chairman Ryan asked unanimous consent to dispense with the 
first reading of the budget aggregates, function levels, and 
other appropriate matter; that the aggregates, function totals, 
and other appropriate matter be open for amendment; and that 
amendments be considered as read.
    There was no objection to the unanimous consent requests.
    The committee adopted and ordered reported the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. The Committee on 
the Budget took the following votes:
    1. An amendment offered by Representative Schwartz 
expressing a sense of the House as to how the Affordable Care 
Act affects Medicare and senior citizens.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes and 20 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM  ......
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR                               MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. An amendment offered by Representative Castor expressing 
a sense of the House on the effects of the Affordable Care Act 
relating to prescription drug costs and other Medicare benefits 
for senior citizens.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 21 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. An amendment offered by Representative Blumenauer to 
increase budget authority and outlays for Function 400 to 
reflect increased funding for transportation, including roads, 
railroads and airports.
    Budget authority and outlays for Function 400 would 
increase by $50 billion in FY 2012 and outlays in the following 
amounts: $19.920 billion for fiscal year 2013, $16.210 billion 
for fiscal year 2014, $5.780 billion for fiscal year 2015, 
$2.350 billion for fiscal year 2016, $1.680 billion for fiscal 
year 2017, $1.350 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.600 billion 
for fiscal year 2019, $0.500 billion for fiscal year 2020, 
$0.400 billion for fiscal year 2021, $0.200 billion for fiscal 
year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 20 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An amendment offered by Representative Kaptur to 
increase budget authority and outlays for Function 700 to 
establish an interagency Veterans Jobs Corps that will employ 
veterans.
    The budget authority for Function 700 would increase by: $1 
billion in fiscal year 2013 and outlays in the following 
amounts: $0.100 billion for fiscal year 2013, $0.225 billion 
for fiscal year 2014, $0.225 billion for fiscal year 2015, 
$0.225 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.225 billion for fiscal 
year 2017.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17 
ayes and 20 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE      X                         SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen, 
Schwartz, Doggett, McCollum, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici 
expressing a sense of the House rejecting any tax increase for 
individuals with incomes under $200,000 or married couples 
below $250,000 and extending the earned income tax credit as 
well as the child tax credit.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 21 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU             X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA                               WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. An amendment offered by Representative Yarmuth to 
increase the levels of recommended revenue through increasing 
taxes on individuals earning over $1 million and dedicate all 
revenue to deficit reduction.
    The revenue levels would increase in the following amounts: 
$35 billion for fiscal year 2013, $50 billion for fiscal year 
2014, $70 billion for fiscal year 2015, $85 billion for fiscal 
year 2016, $100 billion for fiscal year 2017, $105 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $120 billion for fiscal year 2019, $125 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $130 for fiscal year 2021, $140 
billion for fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 22 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER               X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van 
Hollen, Blumenauer, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici increases taxes for 
U.S. businesses and offers a deduction for companies that 
insource jobs. The amendment is revenue neutral.
    The change in recommended levels of revenue are as follows: 
$0.043 billion for fiscal year 2013, $.020 billion for fiscal 
year 2014, -$0.004 million for fiscal year 2015, -$0.017 for 
fiscal year 2016, -$0.012 for fiscal year 2017, -$0.027 for 
fiscal year 2018, $0.025 for fiscal year 2019, -$0.045 for 
fiscal year 2020, -$0.013 for fiscal year 2021, $0.030 for 
fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 21 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. An amendment offered by Representative Wasserman Schultz 
to increase budget authority for Function 550 for the purposes 
of Medicaid spending, offset by a $700 billion revenue increase 
from eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and 
U.S. businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The budget authority and outlays for Function 550 would 
increase by: $3 billion in fiscal year 2013, $33 billion for 
fiscal year 2014, $48 billion for fiscal year 2015, $59 billion 
for fiscal year 2016, $70 billion for fiscal year 2017, $81 
billion for fiscal year 2018, $98 billion for fiscal year 2019, 
$118 billion for fiscal year 2020, $137 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $163 billion for fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 21 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An amendment offered by Representatives Bass, Van 
Hollen, Blumenauer, McCollum, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici 
to increase budget authority and outlays for Function 400 
related to highway funding offset by a revenue increase from 
eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The budget authority for Function 400 would increase by: 
$32.002 billion for fiscal year 2013, $9.438 billion for fiscal 
year 2014, $16.716 billion for fiscal year 2015, $15.858 
billion for fiscal year 2016, $15.839 billion for fiscal year 
2017, $13.939 billion for fiscal year 2018, $14.110 billion for 
fiscal year 2019, $11.838 billion for fiscal year 2020, $17.798 
billion for fiscal year 2021, $6.517 billion for fiscal year 
2022.
    The amendment would increase outlays in the following 
amounts: $47.185 billion for fiscal year 2013, $15.449 billion 
for fiscal year 2014, $21.292 billion for fiscal year 2015, 
$19.328 billion for fiscal year 2016, $19.638 billion for 
fiscal year 2017, $18.548 billion for fiscal year 2018, $19.450 
billion for fiscal year 2019, $18.178 billion for fiscal year 
2020, $25.204 billion for fiscal year 2021, $14.934 billion for 
fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 18 noes.

                           ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                                  YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                                 CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. An amendment offered by Representatives Honda, Van 
Hollen, Doggett, McCollum, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, 
Bass, and Bonamici to increase budget authority and outlays in 
Function 500 for fiscal year 2013 for the purposes of primary 
and secondary education, offset by a revenue increase from 
eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment increases budget authority for Function 500 
by $1.872 billion in fiscal year 2013 and outlays in the 
following amounts: $1.016 billion for fiscal year 2013, $0.550 
billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.183 billion for fiscal year 
2015, $0.063 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.043 billion for 
fiscal year 2017.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. An amendment offered by Representatives Doggett, Van 
Hollen, McCollum, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Honda, Ryan (OH), Moore, 
Bass, and Bonamici to increase budget authority and outlays in 
Function 500 for the purposes of college assistance offset by a 
revenue increase from eliminating tax deductions for domestic 
oil production and U.S. businesses with international 
operations, changing the depreciation schedules for certain 
equipment, and raising taxes on individuals with annual income 
greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
for Function 500 by the following amounts: $0 billion for 
fiscal year 2013, $3.855 billion for fiscal year 2014, $3.477 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $3.247 billion for fiscal year 
2016, $2.986 billion for fiscal year 2017, $2.805 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $2.786 billion for fiscal year 2019, $2.633 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $2.626 billion for fiscal year 
2021, $2.550 billion for fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 20 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. An amendment offered by Representatives McCollum, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Doggett, Yarmouth, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), 
Wasserman Schultz, Moore, Bass, and Bonamici expressing a sense 
of the House relating to women and health care.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 20 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van 
Hollen, McCollum, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Bass, and Bonamici to 
increase budget authority and outlays by $136.6 billion for 
Function 600 for the purpose of a funding increase in the Women 
Infants and Children Program and Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program offset by a revenue increase from 
eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and U.S. 
businesses with international operations, changing the 
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes 
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
    The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays 
for Function 500 by the following amounts: $1.2 billion for 
fiscal year 2013, $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2014, $1.2 
billion for fiscal year 2015, $18.4billion for fiscal year 
2016, $18.5billion for fiscal year 2017, $18.8 billion for 
fiscal year 2018, $19 billion for fiscal year 2019, $19.2 
billion for fiscal year 2020, $19.4billion for fiscal year 
2021, $19.7billion for fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes and 20 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. An amendment offered by Representatives Ryan (OH), Van 
Hollen, McCollum, Pascrell, Castor, Bass, and Bonamici to 
increase spending to fund the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission (CFTC) by increasing budget authority in Function 
370. The increased spending would be paid for by eliminating 
tax deductions for domestic oil production
    The amendment would increase revenues by the following 
amounts: $.599 billion in fiscal year 2013, $1.116 billion in 
fiscal year 2014, $1.180 billion in fiscal year 2015, $1.251 
billion in fiscal year 2016, $1.323 billion in fiscal year 
2017, $1.394billion in fiscal year 2018, $1.467 billion in 
fiscal year 2019, $1.542 billion in fiscal year 2020, $1.621 
billion in fiscal year 2021, $1.692 billion in fiscal year 
2022.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
370 by $0.102 billion in fiscal year 2013, and increases 
outlays in the following amounts: $0.055 billion in fiscal year 
2013, $0.030 billion in fiscal year 2014, $0.010 billion in 
fiscal year 2015, $0.003 billion in fiscal year 2016, 
$0.002billion in fiscal year 2017, $0 billion in fiscal year 
2018 through fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment would dedicate the remaining revenues to 
deficit reduction.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes and 20 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. An amendment offered by Representatives Bonamici, Van 
Hollen, Doggett, Pascrell, and Moore expressing a sense of the 
House supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 
the Securities Exchange Commission.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13 
ayes and 18 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                                 CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA                     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. An amendment offered by Representatives Shuler, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, and Bonamici expressing a sense of 
the House amendment that budget resolutions should enable 
deficit reduction through spending reductions and tax reform.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 15 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON     X                         KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL                               DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                                 CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE                               BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL     X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. An amendment offered by Representative Bass, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Wasserman Schultz, Moore, Castor, 
and Bonamici to increase budget authority and outlays for 
Function 500 for student loans.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
500 by the following amounts: $4.285 billion for fiscal year 
2012, $2.595 billion for fiscal year 2013. The amendment would 
increase outlays for Function 500 by the following amounts: 
$2.480 billion for fiscal year 2012, $3.505 billion for fiscal 
year 2013.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14 
ayes and 20 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                                  McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. An amendment offered by Representatives Castor, Van 
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici expressing 
a sense of the House with respect to changes to the Social 
Security program.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Bass and Bonamici to eliminate tax 
deductions for domestic oil production and use the revenues to 
fund rebates to all registered vehicle owners.
    The amendment would change the recommended levels of 
revenue and deficits by the following amounts: -$34.370 billion 
for fiscal year 2012, $2.624 billion for fiscal year 2013, 
$4.066 billion for fiscal year 2014, $4.008 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $3.947 billion for fiscal year 2016, $3.859 billion 
for fiscal year 2017, $3.633 billion for fiscal year 2018, 
$3.222 billion for fiscal year 2019, $2.955 billion for fiscal 
year 2020, $2.984 billion for fiscal year 2021, $3.074 billion 
for fiscal year 2022.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. An amendment offered by Representatives McCollum, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor and Bonamici to increase 
budget authority in Function 500 with the purpose of 
modernization and construction of public schools.
    The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by 
the following amounts: $13.362 billion for fiscal year 2013, 
$8.294 billion for fiscal year 2014, $4.003 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $1.050 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.072 billion 
for fiscal year 2017.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 20 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA                               ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. An amendment offered by Representative Schwartz 
expressing a sense of the House relating to women's health.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. An amendment offered by Representatives Doggett, Van 
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, Bass, and Bonamici to 
increase budget authority and outlays for Function 500 for the 
purpose of increased funding for Head Start.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
500 by $0.216 billion for fiscal year 2013 and increase outlays 
by the following amounts: $0.117 billion for fiscal year 2013, 
$0.063 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.021 billion for fiscal 
year 2015, $0.007 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.005 billion 
for fiscal year 2017.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. An amendment offered by Representative Van Hollen to 
increase budget authority and outlays in Function 920 for 
discretionary spending.
    The amendment would increase budget authority for Function 
920 by $19.104 billion for fiscal year 2013 and increase 
outlays by the following amounts: $10.370 billion for fiscal 
year 2013, $5.613 billion for fiscal year 2014, $1.870 billion 
for fiscal year 2015, $0.642 billion for fiscal year 2016, 
$0.436 billion for fiscal year 2017.
    The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16 
ayes and 21 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN                 X                VAN          X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT              X                SCHWARTZ     X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON              X                KAPTUR       X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL              X                DOGGETT      X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT              X                BLUMENAU     X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN                 X                McCOLLUM     X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE                 X                YARMUTH      X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE                X                PASCRELL     X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT              X                HONDA        X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN         X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA              X                WASSERMA     X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR              X                MOORE        X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK                X                CASTOR       X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE               X                SHULER       X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES               X                BASS         X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE              X                BONAMICI     X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG                X                ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X     .........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA               X     .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA               X     .........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL              X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. An amendment offered by Representative Moore expressing 
a sense of the House regarding child support enforcement.
    The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
    25. An amendment offered by Chairman Ryan to make technical 
and conforming corrections to the Chairman's Mark..
    The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
    26. Mr. Garrett made a motion that the Committee adopt the 
aggregates, function totals, and other appropriate matter, with 
any amendments.
    The motion offered by Mr. Garrett was agreed to by voice 
vote.
    Chairman Ryan called up the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget for fiscal year 2013 incorporating the aggregates, 
function totals, and other appropriate matter as previously 
agreed.
    27. Mr. Garrett made a motion that the Committee order the 
Concurrent Resolution reported with a favorable recommendation 
and that the Concurrent Resolution do pass.
    The motion offered by Mr. Garrett was agreed to by a roll 
call vote of 19 ayes and 18 noes.

                          ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Name &                      Answer    Name &                    Answer
 State     Aye       No     Present     State     Aye     No     Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN        X                         VAN                  X
 (WI)                                  HOLLEN
 (Chair                                (MD)
 man)                                  (Rankin
                                       g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT     X                         SCHWARTZ             X
 (NJ)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON     X                         KAPTUR               X
 (ID)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL     X                         DOGGETT              X
 L (CA)                                (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT     X                         BLUMENAU             X
 (CA)                                  ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN        X                         McCOLLUM             X
 (MO)                                  (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE        X                         YARMUTH              X
 (OK)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE       X                         PASCRELL             X
 (GA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT     X                         HONDA                X
 OCK                                   (CA)
 (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET                               RYAN                 X
 Z (UT)                                (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA     X                         WASSERMA             X
 N (IN)                                N
                                       SCHULTZ
                                       (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR     X                         MOORE                X
 D (OK)                                (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK       X                         CASTOR               X
 (TN)                                  (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE      X                         SHULER               X
 (WI)                                  (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES      X                         BASS                 X
 (TX)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE     X                         BONAMICI             X
 Y (SC)                                (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA              X                ........
 MP
 (KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG       X                         ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH                X                ........
 (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA      X                         ........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA      X                         ........
 (NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL     X
 (GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Mr. Garrett 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.
    Ms. McCollum asked unanimous consent that the record 
reflect that she would have voted aye on roll call tally #1 
offered by Ms. Schwartz if she were present to vote.
    There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
       Other Matters to be Discussed Under the Rules of the House

                              ----------                              


     Committee on the Budget Oversight Findings and Recommendations

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

   New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

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

                General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

                       Views of Committee Members

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

                             Minority Views

                              ----------                              


                             The Challenge

    We consider this long-term budget plan at an especially 
consequential moment for our country. Unfortunately, this 
Republican budget makes the wrong choices for America. As a 
result of the extraordinary actions taken over the last few 
years, America avoided a second Great Depression and is 
emerging from the ravages of a financial meltdown and near 
economic collapse. While the economy is improving, millions 
ofAmericans remain out of work through no fault of their own. 
Our top priority must be to strengthen the fragile recovery and 
put America back to work. It is also clear that putting 
Americans back to work is the fastest and most effective ways 
to reduce the short term deficit. In fact, the Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that our weak economy and 
underemployment is the major single contributing factor to the 
deficit, accounting for over one third of the projected deficit 
for fiscal year 2012.

                        Addressing the Challenge

    Both President Obama's jobs plan and the President's 
budget--and the budget we will propose as an alternative next 
week--make key investments in the areas of our economy that 
will spur job creation now and ensure our success over the long 
term. They call for initiatives that will spur immediate 
additional job creation, including funding to modernize our 
nation's roads, schools, and bridges. At a time when the 
unemployment rate in the construction industry stands at 17.1 
percent, those kinds of investments are a win-win for the 
American people. Instead of expanding incentives to ship 
American jobs overseas, as the Republican budget plan does, we 
need to invest in jobs here at home and Make It in America. In 
addition to helping small businesses put more Americans back to 
work now, the President's budget also makes strategic long-term 
national investments to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-
compete the rest of the world. These investments are necessary 
for long-term economic growth.
    To achieve long-term economic growth we must also enact a 
plan now to steadily and predictably reduce our deficits and 
debt. The issue is not whether we enact a plan to reduce the 
deficit, the question is how.

                               The Choice

    To govern is to choose, and the choices made in the 
Republican budget are simply wrong for America. It is not bold 
to provide tax breaks to millionaires while ending the Medicare 
guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for 
rising health care costs. It is not courageous to protect tax 
giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests 
while slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific 
research, and critical infrastructure. It is not visionary to 
reward corporations that ship American jobs overseas while 
terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of 
Americans. It is not brave to give governors a blank check for 
their pet initiatives and a license to cut support for seniors 
in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and low-income 
children. And it is not fair to raise taxes on middle-income 
Americans to pay for big additional tax breaks for Wall Street 
executives and the very wealthy.
    Yet those are the choices made in the Republican budget. 
Where is the shared responsibility? We have American men and 
women putting their lives on line in Afghanistan while others 
hide their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and 
refuse to pay their fair share to support our nation.

   The Republican Budget Puts Tax Breaks for the Wealthy and Special 
                Interests Ahead of All Other Priorities

    As the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal 
Responsibility and Reform indicated, any responsible effort to 
reduce the deficit requires a balanced approach that addresses 
both spending and revenue. The Republican plan fails that 
simple test. That is probably not a surprise, since nearly all 
House Republicans have taken the position that they will refuse 
to close a single special interest tax loophole or eliminate a 
subsidy to big oil companies for the purposes of deficit 
reduction.
    Instead, the Republican budget simply rigs the rules of the 
game in favor of the very wealthy and the powerful special 
interests, and it does so at the expense of middle-income 
Americans, seniors, and critical investments necessary to help 
our economy grow stronger.
    In addition to locking in the portion of President Bush's 
tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the very wealthy, the 
Republican budget proposes additional tax breaks for 
millionaires. The Republican proposal to drop the top marginal 
individual rate from 35 percent to 25 percent will provide a 
windfall for millionaires. Together with the Bush tax cuts, 
millionaires could receive an average tax cut of over $150,000. 
Moreover, the additional tax cut for millionaires is inevitably 
paid for by raising taxes on middle-income and other Americans. 
Cutting the top rate by 10 percent generates a new loss of over 
$5 trillion. The Republican budget promises to do this in a 
``revenue neutral'' way, which means raising taxes on middle-
income taxpayers to finance tax cuts for millionaires.
    All of this is in service of a failed, trickle-down 
economic theory that claims that big tax breaks to the very 
wealthy will trickle down to lift the middle class. We have 
been there. We tried it--it was called eight years of the Bush 
Administration. Those tax breaks for the very wealthy may have 
lifted the yachts, but they did not lift any of the other 
boats. And at the end of that period, we saw a net loss of 
private-sector jobs.

       The Republican Budget Harms U.S. Competitiveness Globally

    Republicans call their plan a path to prosperity, and if 
you have already arrived at that point, it is the path for you. 
If you are already prosperous, this will give you an added 
windfall. But tax breaks for the very wealthy come at the 
expense of everyone else. It means everyone else has to 
shoulder the burden of deficit reduction. It also threatens our 
nation's ability to succeed in the global economy. Remember, 
the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the President's budget 
already reflect the approximately $1 trillion in cuts for non-
security discretionary spending proposed by the bipartisan 
Fiscal Commission. But the Republican plan slashes essential, 
strategic investments by another $1 trillion over the next ten 
years. America became an economic powerhouse in part because of 
targeted strategic national investments made by earlier 
generations--including investments in science and technology, 
the interstate highway system, and the G.I. Bill and other 
educational opportunities. By gutting these kinds of 
investments, this plan is a recipe for national decline.

The Republican Budget Ends the Medicare Guarantee and Shreds the Social 
                               Safety Net

    Every member of the Budget Committee knows that rising 
health care costs represent a huge challenge for the federal 
budget. But every member of the Budget Committee should also 
know what every expert has told us--that those rising costs are 
not unique to Medicare or Medicaid. Those costs are endemic to 
the entire health care system. In fact, over the last 40 years, 
the per beneficiary spending in Medicare has grown at a 
slightly slower rate than in the private insurance system. And 
over the last decade, the per-beneficiary costs in Medicaid 
grew much more slowly than the rest of the health care system. 
Indeed, in the private market for individual coverage, premiums 
more than doubled between the years 2000 and 2008, as insurance 
industry profits quadrupled.
    Those facts make one thing clear--if we are going to slow 
the rising costs in Medicare and Medicaid without rationing 
care, we must slow the rising costs of health care throughout 
the health care system. That is exactly what the Affordable 
Care Act signed by President Obama two years ago will do when 
fully implemented.
    The Affordable Care Act will begin to bring down the per 
capita costs of health care throughout the system--including 
Medicare. Yet this Republican budget will kill many of those 
systemwide reforms, without any plan to replace them. House 
Republicans said they could come up with a replacement policy. 
In fact, Republicans supported a resolution last year (H. Res. 
9) asking committees to replace the Affordable Care Act with a 
plan to ``lower health care premiums through increased 
competition and choices'' and ``provide people with pre-
existing conditions access to affordable health coverage.'' We 
are still waiting for that legislation.
    And once again, the Republican budget does not reform 
Medicare--it deforms it. It proposes to end the Medicare 
guarantee, shifting rising costs onto seniors and disabled 
individuals. If your voucher amount is not sufficient to pay 
for the benefits you need, tough luck. This Republican plan 
simply rations health care and choice of doctor by income. And 
despite the claims that market competition will curb the rising 
costs, the plan creates an artificial cap on the value of the 
voucher support. Republicans say they are using the Medicare 
Part D prescription drug benefit as a model, but that program 
has no artificial cap. Members of Congress, who are part of the 
Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, have no cap on the 
premium support they receive from the federal government. 
Clearly, Republicans do not trust the market to drive down 
costs--which is not surprising, as the health insurance market 
failed to achieve that goal for seniors. That is why the 
Congress created Medicare in the first place, to leverage the 
combined negotiating power of millions of seniors.
    To make matters worse, the Republican budget takes away 
important new Medicare benefits already being provided to 
seniors and disabled individuals through the Affordable Care 
Act. The Act gradually closes the ``donut hole'' coverage gap 
in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. More than 5.1 
million seniors have already saved an average of $635 on their 
prescription drug costs. Between now and 2020, the average 
senior in the ``donut hole'' will save more than $10,000 on 
their drug costs, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The Act 
also eliminates cost-sharing for key preventive services such 
as mammograms and colonoscopies and provides a free Annual 
Wellness Visit. These types of benefits are crucial to 
transforming our health system into one that focuses on keeping 
people healthy. Under the Republican budget, these new benefits 
disappear.
    This Republican budget also rips apart the safety net for 
seniors in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, as 
well as low-income children and individuals with disabilities 
who rely on Medicaid. There is nothing courageous about 
targeting the most vulnerable in our society. Yet that is one 
of the biggest areas of Republican cuts. ``Block-granting'' 
Medicaid is simply code for deep, arbitrary cuts in support to 
the most vulnerable seniors, individuals with disabilities, and 
low-income children. Medicaid is already underfunded, yet this 
budget cuts it by over $800 billion, about a third of the 
Medicaid budget by 2022. Claiming to ``repair'' Medicaid by 
cutting it by a third is like saving a drowning person by 
throwing them an anchor.
    The Republican budget does not reach balance in ten years. 
It does not reach balance in 20 years. And their claim that it 
reaches balance at all is based on made-up numbers. It is based 
on a CBO report that states: ``Those calculations do not 
represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the 
effects of any given policies.'' All CBO could do was accept 
the figures and run the formulas specified by ``Chairman Ryan 
and his staff'--disconnected from any real-world policies.

                        The Bottom Line: Values

    This Republican budget is the wrong choice for America 
because it does not reflect our values and priorities. During 
an all day mark-up Democrats offered a series of amendments 
that do reflect America's priorities: investments to promote 
job creation, maintaining Medicare and the social safety net, 
and responsible deficit reduction through policy choices that 
ask everyone to pay their fair share. None of the amendments 
would have increased the deficit, and in fact, several would 
have reduced the deficit. All of the amendments offset any 
proposed spending by reducing unproductive tax breaks, 
including subsidies for big oil companies, egregious tax breaks 
such as tax deductions for corporate jets, tax loopholes that 
encourage the outsourcing of manufacturing and result in fewer 
American jobs, and additional tax cuts for millionaires.
    Republicans rejected every Democratic amendment to reduce 
the deficit or change spending levels.
    Democrats intend to offer our own budget next week that 
will stand in stark contrast to this budget's principles. Our 
budget will reduce the deficit and remain true to our values. 
We are focused on putting Americans back to work in the short 
term while also implementing a longterm plan to get our fiscal 
house in order. We can modernize and strengthen programs like 
Medicare without breaking our promises to seniors and shredding 
the social safety net. And we can make smart spending 
reductions without slashing investments in our nation's future 
that will pay dividends for generations.
    To govern is to choose, but the Republican budget presents 
a false choice that further divides our country. They provide a 
gilded path to prosperity for the already wealthy, while 
leaving working Americans and future generations behind. 
Instead of more of the same, we must work together on a 
balanced path forward that protects the promise and opportunity 
of the American Dream for all.

                                   Chris Van Hollen.
                                   Allyson Schwartz.
                                   Earl Blumenauer.
                                   Bill Pascrell, Jr.
                                   Gwen Moore.
                                   Kathy Castor.
                                   Heath Shuler.
                                   Karen Bass.
                                   Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
                                   Tim Ryan.
                                   Mike Honda.
                                   Suzanne Bonamici.
                                   Betty McCollum.
                                   Lloyd Doggett.
                                   John Yarmuth.
                                   Marcy Kaptur.
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 112

  Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
  year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 
                        years 2014 through 2022.

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.

  (a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that 
this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal 
year 2013 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 
fiscal years 2014 through 2022.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.

                 TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

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

  TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Directive to the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
          Representatives to replace the sequester established by the 
          Budget Control Act of 2011.

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

Sec. 301. Policy statement on long-term budgeting.

                         TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate 
          of the Medicare program.
Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.

                       TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 501. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 502. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 503. Adjustments of aggregates and allocations for legislation.
Sec. 504. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 505. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 506. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
          aggregates.
Sec. 507. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 508. Budget rule relating to transfers from the general fund of the 
          treasury to the highway trust fund that increase public 
          indebtedness.
Sec. 509. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/global 
          war on terrorism.
Sec. 510. Exercise of rulemaking powers.

                            TITLE VI--POLICY

Sec. 601. Policy Statement on Medicare.
Sec. 602. Policy Statement on Social Security.
Sec. 603. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the cancellation 
          of unobligated balances.
Sec. 604. Recommendations for the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse 
          in Federal programs.

                TITLE VII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support 
          enforcement.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

  The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
fiscal years 2013 through 2022:
          (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this resolution:
                  (A) The recommended levels of Federal 
                revenues are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2013: $2,058,604,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2014: $2,248,773,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $2,459,718,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $2,627,541,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $2,770,342,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $2,891,985,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $3,021,132,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $3,173,642,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $3,332,602,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $3,498,448,000,000.
                  (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels 
                of Federal revenues should be changed are as 
                follows:
  Fiscal year 2013: -$234,735,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2014: -$302,411,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: -$356,566,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: -$388,565,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: -$423,997,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: -$460,304,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: -$497,440,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: -$534,378,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: -$574,350,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: -$617,033,000,000.
          (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels 
        of total new budget authority are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2013: $2,793,848,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2014: $2,681,566,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $2,756,471,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $2,888,570,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $2,998,681,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $3,117,133,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $3,290,908,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $3,455,514,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $3,570,712,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $3,780,807,000,000.
          (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement 
        of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total 
        budget outlays are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2013: $2,891,589,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2014: $2,769,702,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $2,784,233,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $2,892,523,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $2,977,372,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $3,080,794,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $3,248,524,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $3,398,470,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $3,531,790,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $3,748,801,000,000.
          (4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the 
        enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the 
        deficits (on-budget) are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2013: -$832,985,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2014: -$520,930,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: -$324,515,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: -$264,982,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: -$207,030,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: -$188,810,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: -$227,392,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: -$224,828,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: -$199,189,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: -$250,353,000,000.
          (5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of 
        the public debt are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2013: $17,072,810,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2014: $17,769,762,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $18,277,348,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $18,752,806,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $19,216,661,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $19,676,545,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $20,168,534,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $20,657,588,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021: $21,121,620,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $21,627,396,000,000.
          (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels 
        of debt held by the public are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2013: $12,261,337,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2014: $12,860,706,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2015: $13,260,430,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2016: $13,597,083,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2017: $13,874,203,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2018: $14,125,515,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2019: $14,417,373,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2020: $14,717,285,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2021; $15,005,091,000,000.
  Fiscal year 2022: $15,363,610,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

  The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
2013 through 2022 for each major functional category are:
          (1) National Defense (050):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $562,166,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $621,469,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $574,807,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $589,720,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $588,501,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $586,446,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $602,958,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $599,658,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $618,519,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $607,874,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $635,241,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $617,648,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $653,094,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $639,165,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $671,528,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $656,950,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $690,261,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $675,190,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $709,450,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $699,316,000,000.
          (2) International Affairs (150):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $43,128,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $46,999,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,113,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $44,758,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,271,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $45,707,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,082,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $46,041,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $40,446,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $46,529,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $42,366,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $46,777,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $43,303,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $45,780,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,294,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $45,774,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $45,329,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $46,737,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $46,649,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $47,872,000,000.
          (3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $28,001,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $29,204,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $28,154,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $28,535,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $28,633,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $28,591,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,176,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $29,006,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $29,759,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $29,526,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $30,412,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $30,127,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,066,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $30,719,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,747,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $31,377,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $32,454,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $31,973,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,173,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $32,680,000,000.
          (4) Energy (270):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $3,025,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $9,407,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,670,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $4,220,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $952,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,375,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $990,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,128,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $960,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,832,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $960,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $1,903,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $1,017,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,103,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $975,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,110,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $863,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,130,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $900,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $2,221,000,000.
          (5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,274,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $37,882,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,554,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $36,144,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $30,181,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $35,058,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $30,868,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $33,832,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,848,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $33,756,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,140,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $33,245,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $33,981,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $33,845,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,132,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $34,707,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,338,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $35,178,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $36,046,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $35,666,000,000.
          (6) Agriculture (350):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $21,691,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $24,611,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $18,145,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $19,113,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,395,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $19,107,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,142,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $18,761,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $18,962,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $18,571,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,291,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $18,849,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $19,556,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $19,152,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $20,045,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $19,667,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $20,543,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $20,154,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $20,571,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $20,187,000,000.
          (7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $7,095,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$3,151,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $1,455,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$12,070,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $711,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$11,591,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $2,675,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$12,166,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $5,135,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$11,195,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $6,515,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$10,525,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,778,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$15,134,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $9,491,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$14,115,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $10,206,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$6,446,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $11,311,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$6,533,000,000.
          (8) Transportation (400):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $57,139,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $49,729,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $80,829,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $84,541,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $74,602,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $77,294,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $76,512,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $79,831,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $77,561,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $80,358,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $80,640,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $81,412,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $81,636,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $81,348,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $85,165,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $84,201,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $80,486,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $79,090,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $93,104,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $91,180,000,000.
          (9) Community and Regional Development (450):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $11,047,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $21,732,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,307,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $16,886,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,389,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $13,927,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,415,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $10,647,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,427,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $8,848,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,435,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $8,044,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,410,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $7,673,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,501,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $7,691,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,604,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $7,805,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $7,726,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $7,997,000,000.
          (10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social 
        Services (500):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $57,626,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $78,335,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $56,151,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $60,269,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $63,904,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $64,931,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $71,626,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $71,719,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $79,630,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $78,652,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $84,076,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $84,121,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $87,738,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $87,647,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $89,329,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $89,911,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $90,305,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $91,272,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $91,458,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $92,408,000,000.
          (11) Health (550):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $363,596,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $365,614,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $358,322,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $362,556,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $365,058,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $369,455,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $376,993,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $376,408,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $393,219,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $394,754,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $404,124,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $406,143,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $419,428,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $417,557,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $446,427,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $433,169,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $449,759,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $446,710,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $471,657,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $468,212,000,000.
          (12) Medicare (570):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $510,144,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $510,056,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $532,701,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $532,004,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $554,995,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $554,555,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $601,515,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $601,281,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $615,386,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $614,665,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $634,539,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $634,089,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $692,173,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $691,921,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $737,284,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $736,531,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $784,647,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $784,158,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $866,591,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $866,448,000,000.
          (13) Income Security (600):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $517,076,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $516,848,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $475,714,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $474,603,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $472,820,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $471,200,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $453,169,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $455,843,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $450,453,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $448,404,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $453,608,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $447,336,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $469,525,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $467,922,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $481,660,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $480,331,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $494,347,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $493,341,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $511,458,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $515,356,000,000.
          (14) Social Security (650):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $53,216,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $53,296,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $31,892,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $32,002,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $35,135,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $35,210,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $38,953,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $38,991,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $43,140,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,140,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $47,590,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $47,590,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $52,429,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $52,429,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $57,425,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $57,425,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $62,604,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $62,604,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $68,079,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $68,079,000,000.
          (15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $134,635,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $135,222,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $137,004,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $137,230,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $139,862,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $139,774,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $148,556,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $148,044,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $147,499,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $146,846,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $146,341,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $145,634,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $156,034,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $155,291,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $160,511,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $159,760,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $165,065,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $164,272,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $175,431,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $174,607,000,000.
          (16) Administration of Justice (750):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $54,277,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $57,623,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $51,201,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $54,168,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $52,499,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $54,276,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $55,868,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $56,929,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $55,704,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $56,547,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $57,407,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $60,053,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $59,263,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $60,828,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $61,091,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $62,003,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $63,137,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $64,045,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $68,922,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $69,817,000,000.
          (17) General Government (800):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,155,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $25,051,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        23,415,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $24,042,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,067,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $23,435,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $22,814,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $22,961,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,149,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $23,170,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $23,734,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $23,699,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $24,304,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $23,897,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $24,751,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $24,365,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $25,358,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $24,896,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $25,881,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $25,449,000,000.
          (18) Net Interest (900):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $344,415,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $344,415,000,000
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $356,352,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $356,352,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $391,014,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $391,014,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $447,356,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $447,356,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $506,642,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $506,642,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $565,014,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $565,014,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $618,628,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $618,628,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $664,102,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $664,102,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $696,908,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $696,908,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $730,179,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $730,179,000,000.
          (19) Allowances (920):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $22,607,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $859,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $87,771,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$50,682,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $90,146,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$80,035,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $94,030,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$93,943,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $96,411,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$101,325,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $101,394,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$106,211,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $106,767,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$111,171,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $113,223,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$117,350,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $120,493,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$123,784,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $121,281,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$125,413,000,000.
          (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $84,736,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$84,736,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $78,697,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$78,697,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $84,531,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$84,531,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $86,226,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$86,226,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $94,507,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$94,507,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $98,066,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$98,066,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $104,845,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$104,845,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $103,878,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$103,878,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $108,168,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$108,168,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, -
                        $110,655,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, -$110,655,000,000.
          (21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on 
        Terrorism:
                  Fiscal year 2013:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $96,725,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $51,125,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2014:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $54,010,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2015:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $48,034,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2016:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $45,422,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2017:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $44,284,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2018:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,912,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2019:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,770,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2020:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,741,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2021:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.
                  Fiscal year 2022:
                          (A) New budget authority, 
                        $44,159,000,000.
                          (B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.

 TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

  (a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--Not later than April 
27, 2012, the House committees named in subsection (b) shall 
submit recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the 
House of Representatives. After receiving those 
recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a 
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations 
without substantive revision.
  (b) Instructions.--
          (1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on 
        Agriculture shall submit changes in laws within its 
        jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by 
        $8,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 and 
        2013; by $19,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2012 through 2017; and by $33,200,000,000 for the 
        period of fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
          (2) 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 $3,750,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
        years 2012 and 2013; by $28,430,000,000 for the period 
        of fiscal years 2012 through 2017; and by 
        $96,760,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 
        through 2022.
          (3) Committee on financial services.--The Committee 
        on Financial Services shall submit changes in laws 
        within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the 
        deficit by $3,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
        years 2012 and 2013; by $16,700,000,000 for the period 
        of fiscal years 2012 through 2017; and by 
        $29,800,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 
        through 2022.
          (4) 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 2012 and 
        2013; by $11,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2012 through 2017; and by $39,700,000,000 for the 
        period of fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
          (5) 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 $2,200,000,000 for 
        the period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; by 
        $30,100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 
        through 2017; and by $78,900,000,000 for the period of 
        fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
          (6) 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 
        $1,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 and 
        2013; by $23,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 
        2012 through 2017; and by $53,000,000,000 for the 
        period of fiscal years 2012 through 2022.

SEC. 202. DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE HOUSE OF 
                    REPRESENTATIVES TO REPLACE THE SEQUESTER 
                    ESTABLISHED BY THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011.

  (a) Submission.--In the House, the Committee on the Budget 
shall report to the House a bill carrying out the directions 
set forth in subsection (b).
  (b) Directions.--The bill referred to in subsection (a) shall 
include the following provisions:
          (1) Replacing the sequester established by the budget 
        control act of 2011.--The language shall amend section 
        251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
        Control Act of 1985 to replace the sequester 
        established under that section consistent with this 
        concurrent resolution.
          (2) Application of provisions.--The bill referred to 
        in subsection (a) shall include language making its 
        application contingent upon the enactment of the 
        reconciliation bill referred to in section 201.

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

SEC. 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

  The following are the recommended budget levels for each of 
fiscal years 2030, 2040, and 2050 as a percent of the gross 
domestic product of the United States:
          (1) Federal revenues.--The appropriate levels of 
        Federal revenues are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2030: 19 percent.
  Fiscal year 2040: 19 percent.
  Fiscal year 2050: 19 percent.
          (2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total 
        budget outlays are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2030: 20.25 percent.
  Fiscal year 2040: 18.75 percent.
  Fiscal year 2050: 16 percent.
          (3) Deficits.--The appropriate amounts of deficits 
        are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2030: 1.25 percent.
  Fiscal year 2040: -.25 percent.
  Fiscal year 2050: -3 percent.
          (4) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels 
        of debt held by the public are as follows:
  Fiscal year 2030: 53 percent.
  Fiscal year 2040: 38 percent.
  Fiscal year 2050: 10 percent.

                        TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS

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

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill 
or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
thereon, that repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
2010.

SEC. 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE 
                    OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill 
or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
thereon, that includes provisions amending or superseding the 
system for updating payments under section 1848 of the Social 
Security Act, if such measure would not increase the deficit in 
the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

SEC. 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill 
reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, or any amendment 
thereto or conference report thereon, that decreases revenue, 
but only if such measure would not increase the deficit over 
the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

SEC. 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary effects 
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, that makes changes to the Payments 
in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-565) or makes 
changes to or provides for the reauthorization of the Secure 
Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 
(Public Law 106-393) by the amounts provided by that 
legislation for those purposes, if such legislation would not 
increase the deficit or direct spending for fiscal year 2013, 
the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2017, or the period of 
fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

SEC. 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.

  In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may 
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or 
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure 
maintains the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, but only if 
such measure would not increase the deficit over the period of 
fiscal years 2013 through 2022.

                      TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in 
subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or an amendment 
thereto or conference report thereon, making a general 
appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for 
advance appropriations.
  (b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided for 
programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to in 
subsection (c)(1) or identified in the report to accompany this 
resolution or the joint explanatory statement of managers to 
accompany this resolution under the heading ``Accounts 
Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
  (c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2014, the aggregate amount 
of advance appropriation shall not exceed--
          (1) $54,462,000,000 for the following programs in the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs--
                  (A) Medical Services;
                  (B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
                  (C) Medical Facilities accounts of the 
                Veterans Health Administration; and
          (2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all 
        other programs.
  (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance 
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority 
provided in a bill or joint resolution making general 
appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority 
provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2014.

SEC. 502. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 503. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES AND ALLOCATIONS FOR LEGISLATION.

  (a) Enforcement.--For purposes of enforcing this resolution, 
the revenue levels shall be those set forth in the March 2012 
Congressional Budget Office baseline. The total amount of 
adjustments made under subsection (b) may not cause revenue 
levels to be below the levels set forth in paragraph (1)(A) of 
section 101 for fiscal year 2013 and for the period of fiscal 
years 2013 through 2022.
  (b) Adjustments.--(1) The chair of the Committee on the 
Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this 
concurrent resolution for--
          (A) the budgetary effects of measures extending the 
        Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
        2001;
          (B) the budgetary effects of measures extending the 
        Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
          (C) the budgetary effects of measures that adjust the 
        Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amounts to prevent a 
        larger number of taxpayers as compared with tax year 
        2008 from being subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax 
        or of allowing the use of nonrefundable personal 
        credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax;
          (D) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, 
        gift, and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions 
        of title III of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance 
        Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010;
          (E) the budgetary effects of measures providing a 20 
        percent deduction in income to small businesses;
          (F) the budgetary effects of measures implementing 
        trade agreements;
          (G) the budgetary effects of provisions repealing the 
        tax increases set forth in the Patient Protection and 
        Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education 
        Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;
          (H) the budgetary effects of provisions reforming the 
        Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 
        Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation 
        Act of 2010; and
          (I) the budgetary effects of measures reforming the 
        tax code and lowering tax rates.
  (2) A measure does not qualify for adjustments under 
paragraph (1)(H) if it--
          (A) increases the deficit over the period of fiscal 
        years 2013 through 2022; or
          (B) increases revenues over the period of fiscal 
        years 2013 through 2022, other than by--
                  (i) repealing or modifying the individual 
                mandate (codified as section 5000A of the 
                Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
                  (ii) modifying the subsidies to purchase 
                health insurance (codified as section 36B of 
                the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
  (c) Other Adjustments.--If a committee (other than the 
Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint 
resolution, or an amendment thereto or 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 2013 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.
  (d) Determinations.--For the purpose of enforcing this 
concurrent resolution on the budget in the House, the 
allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority, 
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, 
deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2013 and the period of 
fiscal years 2013 through fiscal year 2022 shall be determined 
on the basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on 
the Budget and such chair may adjust the applicable levels of 
this resolution.

SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.

  (a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to 
consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
(other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment 
thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of 
such measure have the net effect of increasing direct spending 
in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described in 
subsection (b).
  (b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of 
this section are any of the first four consecutive ten fiscal-
year periods beginning with fiscal year 2023.

SEC. 505. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory statement 
accompanying the conference report on any concurrent resolution 
on the budget shall include in its allocation under section 
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committee 
on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary administrative 
expenses of the Social Security Administration and the United 
States Postal Service.
  (b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f) 
and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of 
the level of total new budget authority and total outlays 
provided by a measure shall include any off-budget 
discretionary amounts.
  (c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget 
may adjust allocations and aggregates for legislation reported 
by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that 
reforms the Federal retirement system, but does not cause a net 
increase in the deficit for fiscal year 2013 and the period of 
fiscal years 2013 to 2022.

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

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

SEC. 507. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.

  (a) Fair Value Estimates.--
          (1) Request for supplemental estimates.--Upon the 
        request of the chair or ranking member of the Committee 
        on the Budget, any estimate prepared for a measure 
        under the terms of title V of the Congressional Budget 
        Act of 1974, ``credit reform'', as a supplement to such 
        estimate of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to 
        the extent practicable, also provide an estimate of the 
        current actual or estimated market values representing 
        the ``fair value'' of assets and liabilities affected 
        by such measure.
          (2) Enforcement.--If the Congressional Budget Office 
        provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a), 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.
  (b) Budgetary Effects of the National Flood Insurance 
Program.--The Congressional Budget Office shall estimate the 
change in net income to the National Flood Insurance Program by 
this Act if such income is included in a reconciliation bill 
provided for in section 201, as if such income were deposited 
in the general fund of the Treasury.

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

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

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

  (a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate 
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas 
contingency operations and the global war on terrorism. For 
purposes of enforcing such separate allocation under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first 
fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be deemed 
to refer to fiscal year 2013. Such separate allocation shall be 
the exclusive allocation for overseas contingency operations 
and the global war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such 
Act. Section 302(c) of such Act does not apply to such separate 
allocation. The Committee on Appropriations may provide 
suballocations of such separate allocation under section 302(b) 
of such Act. Spending that counts toward the allocation 
established by this section shall be designated pursuant to 
section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
  (b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection (a) 
for fiscal year 2013, no adjustment shall be made under section 
314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any 
adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

SEC. 510. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

  (a) In General.--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.
  (b) Limitation on Application.--The following provisions of 
H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) shall no longer have force or 
effect:
          (1) Section 3(e) relating to advance appropriations.
          (2) Section 3(f) relating to the treatment of off-
        budget administrative expenses.

                            TITLE VI--POLICY

SEC. 601. 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 and near 
        retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the 
        Congressional Budget Office--
                  (A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be 
                exhausted in 2022 and unable to pay scheduled 
                benefits; and
                  (B) Medicare spending is growing faster than 
                the economy and Medicare outlays are currently 
                rising at a rate of 6.3 percent per year, and 
                under the Congressional Budget Office's 
                alternative fiscal scenario, direct spending on 
                Medicare is projected to reach 7 percent of GDP 
                by 2035 and 14 percent of GDP by 2085.
          (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 protect those in and near retirement from any 
disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future 
beneficiaries the same health care options available to Members 
of Congress.
  (c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the 
Medicare program such that:
          (1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those 
        in and near retirement, without changes.
          (2) For future generations, when they reach 
        eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium 
        support payment and a selection of guaranteed health 
        coverage options from which recipients can choose a 
        plan that best suits their needs.
          (3) Medicare will provide additional assistance for 
        lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater 
        health risks.
          (4) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path 
        and the Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-
        term.

SEC. 602. 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, according to the Congressional 
                Budget Office, the Federal Disability Insurance 
                Trust Fund will be exhausted and will be unable 
                to pay scheduled benefits.
                  (B) In 2036, according to the Social Security 
                Trustees Report the combined Federal Old-Age 
                and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal 
                Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be 
                exhausted, and will be unable to pay scheduled 
                benefits.
                  (C) With the exhaustion of the trust funds in 
                2036, benefits will be cut 23 percent across 
                the board, devastating those currently in or 
                near retirement and those who rely on Social 
                Security the most.
          (3) The current recession has exacerbated the crisis 
        to Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office 
        continues to project permanent cash deficits.
          (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) Americans deserve action by their elected 
        officials on Social Security reform. It is critical 
        that the Congress and the administration work together 
        in a bipartisan fashion 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 fo 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 permanently solvent. This resolution 
assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that--
          (1)(A) if in any year the Board of Trustees of the 
        Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and 
        the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund in its 
        annual Trustees' Report determines that the 75-year 
        actuarial balance of the Social Security Trust Funds is 
        in deficit, and the annual balance of the Social 
        Security Trust Funds in the 75th year is in deficit, 
        the Board of Trustees should, not 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; and
          (B) such recommendations provided to the President 
        should be agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the 
        Board of Trustees;
          (2)(A) not later than December 1 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; and
          (B) the Majority Leader of the Senate and the 
        Majority Leader of the House should introduce such 
        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 such 
        legislation, which should be considered by the full 
        House or Senate under expedited procedures; and
          (4) legislation submitted by the President should--
                  (A) protect those in and near retirement;
                  (B) preserve the safety net for those who 
                rely on Social Security, including survivors 
                and those with disabilities;
                  (C) improve fairness for participants; and
                  (D) reduce the burden on, and provide 
                certainty for, future generations.

SEC. 603. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE 
                    CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) According to the Office of Management and Budget, 
        Federal agencies will hold $698 billion in unobligated 
        balances at the close of fiscal year 2013.
          (2) These funds represent direct and discretionary 
        spending made available by Congress that remain 
        available for expenditure beyond the fiscal year for 
        which they are provided.
          (3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and 
        it remains available for obligation indefinitely.
          (4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
        Act of 1974 requires the Office of Management and 
        Budget to make funds available to agencies for 
        obligation and prohibits the Administration from 
        withholding or cancelling unobligated funds unless 
        approved by an act of Congress.
          (5) Greater congressional oversight is required to 
        review and identify potential savings from unneeded 
        balances of funds.
  (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of 
Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees shall through 
their oversight activities identify and achieve savings through 
the cancellation or rescission of unobligated balances that 
neither abrogate contractual obligations of the 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.
  (c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of the 
Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, and 
other appropriate agencies should make it a high priority to 
review unobligated balances and identify savings for deficit 
reduction.

SEC. 604. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND 
                    ABUSE IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

  (a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
          (1) The Government Accountability Office is required 
        by law to identify examples of waste, duplication, and 
        overlap in Federal programs, and has so identified 
        dozens of such examples.
          (2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight 
        and Government Reform, the Comptroller General has 
        stated that addressing the identified waste, 
        duplication, and overlap in Federal programs ``could 
        potentially save tens of billions of dollars''.
          (3) The Rules of the House of Representatives require 
        each standing committee to hold at least one hearing 
        every four months on waste, fraud, abuse, or 
        mismanagement in Government programs.
          (4) The findings resulting from congressional 
        oversight of Federal Government programs should result 
        in programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes 
        and program funding levels.
  (b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Reduction of 
Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each authorizing committee 
annually shall include in its Views and Estimates letter 
required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of 
programs within the jurisdiction of such committee whose 
funding should be reduced or eliminated. Such recommendations 
shall be made publicly available.

                TITLE VII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS

SEC. 701. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT 
                    ENFORCEMENT.

  It is the sense of the House that--
          (1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure 
        that States have the necessary resources to collect all 
        child support that is owed to families and to allow 
        them to pass 100 percent of support on to families 
        without financial penalty; and
          (2) when 100 percent of child support payments are 
        passed to the child, rather than administrative 
        expenses, program integrity is improved and child 
        support participation increases.