- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-17
_______________________________________________________________________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2014
----------
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
to accompany
H. Con. Res. 25
ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2023
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
March 15, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2014
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-17
_______________________________________________________________________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2014
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
to accompany
H. Con. Res. 25
ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2023
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
March 15, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM PRICE, Georgia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TOM COLE, Oklahoma BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM McCLINTOCK, California TIM RYAN, Ohio
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee KATHY CASTOR, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
BILL FLORES, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ROB WOODALL, Georgia HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia JARED HUFFMAN, California
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri TONY CARDENAS, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
LUKE MESSER, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TOM RICE, South Carolina
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin
Professional Staff
Austin Smythe, Staff Director
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Page
Introduction..................................................... 3
Summary Tables--Spending and Revenues:
Table 1. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Total Spending
and
Revenue.................................................... 10
Table 2. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Discretionary
Spending................................................... 13
Table 3. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Mandatory
Spending................................................... 15
Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution....... 18
Table 5. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution vs. the
President's Budget......................................... 19
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution.................... 21
Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and
Private
Forecasters................................................ 25
Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget
Resolution................................................. 26
Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal
Years 2012-2017............................................ 27
Function-by-Function Presentation................................ 39
050 National Defense......................................... 39
150 International Affairs.................................... 43
250 General Science, Space, and Technology................... 47
270 Energy................................................... 49
300 Natural Resources and Environment........................ 53
350 Agriculture.............................................. 57
370 Commerce and Housing Credit.............................. 59
400 Transportation........................................... 65
450 Community and Regional Development....................... 69
500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services..... 73
550 Health................................................... 79
570 Medicare................................................. 83
600 Income Security.......................................... 87
650 Social Security.......................................... 91
700 Veterans Benefits and Services........................... 95
750 Administration of Justice................................ 97
800 General Government....................................... 99
900 Net Interest............................................. 101
920 Allowances............................................... 103
930 Government-Wide Savings.................................. 105
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts........................ 107
970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism.. 109
Revenue.......................................................... 111
Committee on Ways and Means Letter............................... 115
Direct Spending Trends and Reforms............................... 119
Table 9. Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending................................................... 123
Table 10. Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending................................................... 125
Reconciliation................................................... 127
The Long-Term Budget Outlook..................................... 129
Section-by-Section Description................................... 131
Title I. Recommended Levels and Amounts...................... 131
Title II. Reconciliation..................................... 132
Title III. Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040,
and 2050................................................... 133
Title IV. Reserve Funds...................................... 134
Title V. Estimates of Direct Spending........................ 137
Title VI. Budget Enforcement................................. 138
Title VII. Policy Statements................................. 142
Title VIII. Sense of the House Provisions.................... 144
The Congressional Budget Process................................. 145
Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee
on Appropriations.......................................... 147
Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget
amounts)................................................... 147
Statutory Controls Over the Budget............................... 151
Table 13. Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Budget Authority.... 155
Table 14. Composition of Spending and BCA Automatic
Enforcement................................................ 155
Enforcing Budgetary Levels....................................... 157
Reconciliation................................................... 161
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations................... 163
Votes of the Committee........................................... 165
Amendments Considered by the Committee on the Budget............. 189
Other Matters to be Discussed Under the Rules of the House....... 193
Minority Views................................................... 195
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014..... 199
T A B L E S
Page
Table 1. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Total Spending and
Revenue........................................................ 10
Table 2. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Discretionary
Spending....................................................... 13
Table 3. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution Mandatory Spending... 15
Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution........... 18
Table 5. Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution vs. the President's
Budget......................................................... 19
Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and Private
Forecasters.................................................... 25
Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget
Resolution..................................................... 26
Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal
Years 2012-2017................................................ 27
Table 9. Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending....................................................... 123
Table 10. Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending....................................................... 125
Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee on
Appropriations................................................. 147
Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget amounts) 147
Table 13. Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Budget Authority........ 155
Table 14. Composition of Spending and BCA Automatic Enforcement.. 155
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-17
======================================================================
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2014
_______
ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2014 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2015 THROUGH 2023
_______
March 15, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, from the Committee on the Budget, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H. Con. Res. 25]
INTRODUCTION
----------
Five years ago, we had a financial crisis. It flared up
suddenly, though the tinder had built up over time. And the
damage was severe. Four million families lost their homes.\1\
Nine million people lost their jobs.\2\ In some ways,
Washington helped put out the flames. But much of what the
government tried--more regulations, more spending--didn't work.
In fact, it may have delayed the recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Tara Steele, ``Nearly Four Million Foreclosures Completed since
Housing Crash,'' AGBeat, 3 December 2012.
\2\Christopher J. Goodman and Steven M. Mance, ``Employment Loss
and the 2007-09 Recession: An Overview,'' Monthly Labor Review, April
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, we face a crisis of another sort--one more
predictable than the last and more dangerous than ever. We face
the threat of a debt crisis.
Our national debt is growing faster than our economy. In
other words, our obligations are growing faster than our
ability to pay them. Debt held by the public is 73 percent of
our economy. By 2023, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]
expects it to hit 77 percent. In fact, under an alternative
scenario that assumes a plausible set of policy choices, it
could hit 87 percent by 2023. And total national debt is
already bigger than our economy.
Federal spending is the problem. In 2023, the CBO expects
revenue to be double last year's total. Yet the deficit will be
nearly $1 trillion. As 80 million baby boomers retire and the
population gets older, our entitlement programs will start
bursting at the seams. In the next decade, Social Security will
grow at an annual average of 5.8 percent. Medicare will grow at
6.2 percent. And Medicaid--thanks in part to its expansion
under the health-care law--will grow at an astounding 9.9
percent.
Without reform, entitlement programs will overwhelm all
other items in the federal budget. And our national debt will
overwhelm our economy. At some point, lenders might question
our ability to pay our obligations. They might demand higher
interest rates. If they did, we would have a debt crisis, and
the pain would be intense. This budget offers a way to avoid
this crisis. And it does so with an appreciation of what a debt
crisis would mean to the country--and the individual.
Impact on the Country
Today, we're enjoying historically low interest rates
because investors have retreated to U.S. securities amid global
turmoil. But the federal government's growing obligations may
shake their confidence. In return, they might demand
compensation for that higher risk. Foreigners own almost half
of our publicly held debt.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\``Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities,'' Treasury
Department, Accessed 3 March 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Reserve is also buying large amounts of the
federal debt as part of its quantitative-easing program to keep
interest rates low. The combination of a large and growing debt
and low interest rates makes the country vulnerable to a sudden
shift in foreign-investor sentiment. In addition, we will have
to roll over much of our debt in the next two years--when
interest rates might be higher.
As interest rates rose, debt payments would crowd out other
parts of the budget. At some point, rates would reach
prohibitive highs. Unable to borrow more money, the federal
government would have to resort to austerity: big tax hikes and
big spending cuts. To put that into perspective, Bill Gross,
bond-fund manager at PIMCO, estimates that we would need to cut
spending or raise taxes by 11 percent of GDP (or $1.6 trillion)
over the next five to ten years to keep our debt below a crisis
level.
If we waited until a debt crisis broke out, the pain would
be worse. Treasury bonds are the lynchpin of global debt
markets. Virtually all financial institutions consider them
safe, liquid assets. If interest rates rose, bond prices would
drop, tearing up these firms' balance sheets. Len Burman,
former director of the Tax Policy Center, warns that such an
event would be ``disastrous.''\4\ The federal government would
be unable to borrow money to support private enterprise, as it
did during the financial crisis. As a result, he estimates that
the economy would shrink by 25 to 30 percent--a contraction
rivaling the Great Depression in size.\5\ He writes that ``it
could easily take the nation a generation or longer to recover
from [such a] disaster.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Len Burman et al. ``Catastrophic Budget Failure,'' Presented at
Joint TPC-USC Conference, 15 January 2010.
\5\Ibid.
\6\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on the Individual
The effects of a debt crisis would cascade through the
economy--all the way down to the individual. Nearly all
consumer-borrowing rates are linked to long-term Treasury
rates. As Treasury rates increased, rates on mortgages, credit
cards, and car loans would follow.
Roughly half of all household debt consists of variable-
interest-rate loans, so a spike in Treasury rates would lead to
higher borrowing costs for families. One estimate suggests that
an interest-rate increase of just one percentage point would
increase annual interest payments for the average family by
$400.\7\ In fact, the added costs could easily exceed $1,000
per year. To a new homebuyer, a one-percentage-point increase
in mortgage rates would add as much as 19 percent to the total
cost.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Center for American Progress, ``Payment Due: The Effects of
Higher Interest Rates on Consumers and the Economy,'' 20 September
2004.
\8\``Interest Rates Have Nowhere to Go but Up.'' New York Times, 10
April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A debt crisis would not only mean higher interest payments.
It would also cost jobs and slow wage growth. The corporate
sector has roughly $11.5 trillion in loans that will mature
over the next five years.\9\ A sharp rise in interest rates
would force businesses to curb investment. They would cut the
amount they spent on equipment and plant development--which
workers need to earn higher wages. Over time, lower investment
would depress wage growth, as productivity slowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\``The Untold Story of America's Debt,'' Deloitte LLP, June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A debt crisis would also mean higher taxes. If current
federal interest payments were allotted to taxpayers, they
would equal about $255 per month, according to Deloitte LLP.
Under Deloitte's alternative scenario, that amount would jump
to $424 for each taxpayer over the next decade.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a debt crisis would hurt the most vulnerable worst
of all. During the financial crisis, the federal government was
able to borrow money to finance higher spending for
unemployment insurance, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other
programs that assist low-income families. In a debt crisis,
however, the government would be unable to provide that
assistance.
We do not need to look far for examples of a debt crisis in
action. There are examples in the United States, where
municipalities have gone bankrupt and been unable to provide
basic services. In Central Falls, Rhode Island, for instance,
retirees' pensions have been slashed by up to 55 percent.\11\
In Stockton, California, the city has laid off 25 percent of
its police force in the face of increasing pension costs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Bidgood, Jess. ``Plan to End Bankruptcy in Rhode Island City
Gains Approval.'' New York Times. 6 September 2012.
\12\Gonzales, Richard. ``An Example to Avoid: City of Stockton on
the Brink.'' NPR. 11 March 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of Americans--the elderly, the handicapped, the
poor--depend on assistance from the federal government. If we
had a debt crisis, we wouldn't be able to keep our promises to
these families.
The Solution: A Balanced Budget
The greatest threat is inaction. Allowing the status quo of
uncontrolled spending and ever rising a debt invites a debt
crisis. The federal government can avoid that outcome by taking
steps to get its fiscal house in order. That is why this budget
achieves balance within the next ten years. It does so with
emphasis on six areas. It expands opportunity by growing our
economy. It strengthens the safety net by retooling federal
aid. It secures seniors' retirement by reforming entitlements.
It restores fair play to the marketplace by ending cronyism. It
keeps our country safe by rebuilding our military. And it ends
Washington's culture of reckless spending.
1. Opportunity Expanded
This budget offers a plan to expand opportunity. While not
sufficient by themselves, policy reforms at the federal level
can help foster an environment that expands opportunity. This
budget seeks to equip Americans with the skills to succeed in a
21st-century economy and to grow that economy through long-
overdue tax reform. Both reforms work off the same principle:
The American people know their needs better than bureaucrats
thousands of miles away.
Higher education and job-training in brief
Encourage policies that promote innovation.
Adopt a sustainable maximum-award level for Pell.
Ensure aid for higher education is targeted to the
truly needy.
Eliminate ineffective and duplicative federal
education programs.
Consolidate job-training programs, based on
reforms in the SKILLS Act, and provide for a career-scholarship
fund.
Tax reform in brief
Simplify the tax code to make it fairer to
American families and businesses.
Reduce the amount of time and resources necessary
to comply with tax laws.
Substantially lower tax rates for individuals,
with a goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25 percent.
Consolidate the current seven individual-income-
tax brackets into two brackets with a first bracket of 10
percent.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent.
Transition the tax code to a more competitive
system of international taxation.
2. Safety Net Strengthened
This budget applies the lessons of welfare reform to all
federal-aid programs. It gives states more flexibility to
tailor programs to their people's needs. It gives those closest
to the people better tools so they can root out waste, fraud,
and abuse. Finally, it empowers recipients to get off the aid
rolls and back on the payroll. By enlisting states in the fight
against poverty, this budget builds a partnership between the
federal government and our communities.
Health care in brief
Provide states flexibility on Medicaid.
Repeal the health-care law's expansion of
Medicaid.
Repeal the health-care law's exchange subsidies.
Welfare reform in brief
Allow states to customize SNAP to address the
needs unique to their citizens.
Address barriers to upward mobility.
Reinstitute welfare's work requirements.
3. Retirement Secured
This budget protects and strengthens Medicare for current
and future generations. It also requires the President and
Congress to work together to forge a solution for Social
Security. This budget recognizes that the federal government
must keep its word to current and future seniors. And to do
that, it must reform these programs.
Medicare in brief
Preserve Medicare for those in or near retirement.
Reform Medicare for younger generations.
End the raid on the Medicare Trust Fund.
Repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Reform the medical-liability system.
Means-test premiums for high-income seniors.
Social Security in brief
Require the President to submit a plan to shore up
the Social Security Trust Fund.
Require Congress to submit a plan of its own.
Federal-workforce retirement in brief
Reform civil-service pensions.
Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
4. Fairness Restored
The administration's uncontrolled, wasteful spending in
combination with an overzealous regulatory agenda has weakened
an anemic economy and created barriers to job creation,
especially for small businesses. To restore fairness--and
vitality--to our economy, this budget ends cronyism; eliminates
waste, fraud, and abuse; and returns the federal government to
its proper sphere of activity.
Energy in brief
Restore competition to the energy sector with the
goal of energy independence.
Unlock America's vast energy resources in an
environmentally responsible manner.
Stop the government from buying up unnecessary
land.
Housing in brief
Wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Accurately account for trillions in federal loans
and guarantees.
Financial services in brief
Revisit flawed financial regulations.
Health care in brief
Repeal the President's health-care law.
Move toward patient-centered reform.
Cutting spending in brief
Cap spending.
Eliminate waste.
5. A Nation Protected
The first job of the federal government is to secure the
safety of its citizens from threats at home and abroad. Whether
defeating the terrorists who attacked this country on September
11, 2001, deterring the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, or battling insurgents who would harbor terrorist
networks that threaten Americans' lives, the men and women of
the United States' military have performed superbly. This
budget provides the best equipment, training, and compensation
for their continued success. It also keeps faith with the
veterans who have served and protected the nation.
Defense in brief
Provide $579.2 billion in defense spending for
fiscal year 2014, an amount consistent with America's military
goals and strategies.
Fully fund our nation's commitment to veterans.
6. A Budget Process Reformed
When it comes to fixing the broken budget process, the
choice facing Americans could not be clearer: The President and
his party's leaders have failed to meet their budgetary
responsibilities. The President has failed to submit his budget
by the statutory deadline in four of the past five years. It
appears his budget will be two months late, the latest
submission by a President since the statutory requirement to
submit a budget was enacted nearly 100 years ago. The Senate
has failed to pass a budget in four years.
By contrast, the Republican majority in the House has met
its legal and moral obligation by passing a bold budget that
tackles America's most pressing fiscal challenges. Last
Congress, the House Budget Committee authored and advanced
several statutory reforms to bring more accountability to the
federal budget process. This budget continues in the spirit of
those proposed reforms, which the Committee will again pursue
after this resolution has been adopted by the House.
Budget reform in brief
Extend the Budget Control Act's federal spending
caps through the end of the budget window.
Create a budget point of order against legislation
that increases net mandatory spending beyond the ten-year
window, a limitation that can help check Congressional appetite
to create costly open-ended entitlement programs.
Close the loophole that allows discretionary
limits to be circumvented through advance appropriations.
Require that the costs of legislation related to
housing be calculated on a fair-value basis and authorize the
use of fair-value-costs estimates for other credit programs.
Call on congressional committees to regularly
review programs for waste, fraud, and abuse.
* * * * *
By submitting this budget resolution, the House Budget
Committee has fulfilled its responsibility--a full month before
the April 15 deadline for completion of the budget resolution
by Congress. The budget resolution is the only legislation that
views the federal government as a whole. As such, it serves
many functions: It resolves conflicting judgments about our
national priorities. And it reconciles divergent views of our
country's future. Ultimately, the budget is more than a list of
numbers. It's an expression of our governing philosophy. The
Committee on the Budget will again complete its budget on
time--in recognition of the need for transparent government.
And it will do so with great purpose: to provide for the
orderly execution of Congress's duties and to restore the
promise of this exceptional nation.
ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION
----------
The Current Economic Situation
Real gross domestic product was virtually flat in the
fourth quarter of 2012, increasing by just 0.1 percent,
according to preliminary estimates. That represented a sharp
slowdown from the 3.1 percent increase posted in the third
quarter. Although many economists attribute this recent
slowdown to temporary factors, economic growth remains
sluggish, nearly four years after the recession officially
ended. For all of 2012, real GDP grew by 2.2 percent on a year-
over-year basis, representing the seventh straight year of
growth below the 3 percent mark. (The trend rate of real GDP
growth over time in the U.S. has been roughly 3 percent.)
The outlook for 2013 calls for moderate, though sub-par,
economic growth. The Blue Chip consensus expects just 1.9
percent real growth next year. Among the expected drags to
growth this year are increased taxes resulting both from the
fiscal-cliff deal as well as scheduled tax hikes associated
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; a sharp
rise in gasoline prices that could weigh on consumer spending;
and subdued export growth due to continued weakness abroad.
Among the positive factors supporting growth going forward are
strength in residential investment, a rebound in business
inventories, and gains in business investment. The Blue Chip
consensus sees real GDP growth picking up to a healthier pace--
2.8 percent--in 2014.
Total payroll employment increased by a robust 236,000 in
February, well above market expectations. That represented a
higher rate of employment growth than the 183,000-per-month
average posted in 2012. The unemployment rate also declined
from 7.9 to 7.7 percent. It was an improvement, but the last
time unemployment was that high was 29 years ago, and that was
on the heels of a deep recession. Moreover, the decline in the
unemployment rate was partly due to people leaving the labor
force. A broader gage of underemployment--which includes people
who have stopped looking for work or who cannot find full-time
jobs--is still above 14 percent. In addition, the labor-force-
participation rate ticked down in February from 63.6 to 63.5
percent, the lowest level in over 30 years.
After suffering an unprecedented decline during the
financial crisis, the U.S. housing market is gradually
improving. Over the past four years, home prices have made some
gains since dropping to a very low level. In the fourth quarter
of 2012, for instance, national average home prices were up
over 7 percent from year-before levels. The pace of residential
investment is also set to improve. The Blue Chip consensus
expects housing starts to reach 990,000 units this year.
Although that level is not particularly high by historical
standards, it would represent a 27 percent increase from 2012
levels.
Crude-oil prices have risen lately and are flirting with
the $100-per-barrel mark, which is causing higher prices at the
pump. Since the start of the year, the average price of retail
gasoline in the U.S. has risen by $0.50 (or 14 percent) to
$3.85 per gallon. Analysts point out that gas prices will
likely continue to rise through the spring and summer months,
which could dampen consumer spending.
Despite the rise in energy prices, the Federal Reserve
notes that inflation levels remain low. The Fed's preferred
inflation gage--the price index for personal-consumption
expenditures--rose at an annual rate of just 1.5 percent in the
latter half of 2012. Looking ahead, the Fed believes that
overall inflation levels over the medium term will run ``at or
below'' its 2 percent objective.
With a sub-par labor market and inflation running slightly
below levels that it believes are consistent with its mandate,
the Fed has been engaged in a ``highly accommodative monetary
policy''--to quote Chairman Ben Bernanke--to support the
economy. For instance, at its December Federal Open Market
Committee meeting, the Fed provided more explicit policy
guidance on how it is likely to change interest rates in
response to economic conditions. The Fed essentially said that
exceptionally low interest rates will likely be required as
long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5 percent and
expected medium-term inflation runs no more than half a
percentage point above the FOMC's 2 percent long-run goal. In
addition to assuring markets that the federal funds rate will
likely be low for an extended period of time, the Fed is making
regular, large-scale purchases of both mortgage-backed
securities and Treasury securities to put downward pressure on
long-term interest rates. The Fed is purchasing roughly $85
billion in securities ($40 billion in MBS and $45 billion in
long-term Treasuries) per month, or more than $1 trillion per
year in so-called quantitative easing.
The yield on the ten-year Treasury has ticked higher in
recent months, though it still was just below the 2 percent
mark as of late February, which is extremely low by historical
standards. The low level of Treasury yields is partly a
function of the Fed's extremely accommodative monetary policy
as well as the ``flight to quality'' among global credit
investors seeking a relatively risk-free haven in the storm of
ongoing financial crises, particularly in Europe.
The stock market has continued to make impressive gains. As
of late February, the S&P 500 was up over 10 percent from year-
before levels and had doubled from its crisis low point in the
middle of 2009. Since then, the Federal Reserve's large-scale
asset purchases have lowered bond yields, and they likely have
been a contributing factor in boosting equity prices in recent
years, as investors have moved into stocks and out of lower-
yielding bonds. These strong market gains may taper off as
analysts expect company-profit growth to slow over the year
ahead.
The Economic Outlook
Economic projections from the CBO and private forecasters
generally predict just modest economic growth in 2013, though
the pace of growth is expected to pick up in subsequent years.
The President's budget, which was due on February 4, includes
an economic forecast and is usually accompanied by the Economic
Report of the President, but the administration has yet to
submit its FY 2014 budget.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The law requires the President to submit his budget no later
than the first Monday in February, which fell on February 4 this year.
The Economic Report of the President is due within ten days of the
President's budget submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO expects real GDP growth, measured on a year-over-year
basis, of just 1.4 percent this year, slightly below the
current private-sector forecast of 1.9 percent. Both forecasts
show growth picking up in 2014 to the 2.5-3 percent range, but
the predictions differ more sharply over the medium term. For
instance, CBO expects growth in the middle part of the decade
to be around 4 percent. That would mark the best string of
annual growth rates since the latter part of the 1990s. By
contrast, the private-sector Blue Chip forecast is more subdued
over the medium term, predicting annual growth at or slightly
below the 3 percent mark.
Both forecasts predict the unemployment rate will decline
slowly from its current elevated level. CBO does not see the
unemployment rate dipping below the 7 percent mark until the
latter part of 2015. It doesn't see the unemployment rate
falling back to the pre-recession, pre--financial crisis range
of just over 5 percent until the latter part of the decade.
As the economy recovers, the forecasts predict that
interest rates will gradually move higher. According to CBO,
the ten-year Treasury rate, which has been hovering at an all-
time low between 1.5 and 2 percent, will rise back above 4
percent in 2016 and 5 percent in the latter part of the decade.
The Blue Chip consensus expects slightly lower interest rates,
on average, over the medium and longer term.
Rates of inflation are also expected to normalize in the
coming years from their current low levels. CBO expects just a
1.6 percent increase in prices in 2013. That rate of inflation
is expected to rise back above 2 percent in the middle and
latter part of the decade. For the most part, the Blue Chip
consensus expects a slightly higher rate of inflation than CBO
does throughout the ten-year budget window.
CBO's annual economic assumptions were adopted for use in
the budget resolution and are shown in Table 7.
As noted earlier, interest rates will gradually rise from
their historically low levels as the economy recovers. That
rise in interest rates, combined with the large stock of debt
we are carrying, will mean that net interest payments will
become a significant part of overall government spending later
in the decade. This increase is a function of debt levels that
are expected to rise in the future as a share of the economy.
As a result, debt-service costs absorb an increasing share of
national income, and the country must borrow an increasing
amount each year both to fund its ongoing services and to make
good on its previous debt commitments.
Because of this growing debt burden and a projection that
interest rates will not remain abnormally low, CBO projects
that the fastest-growing category of the federal budget is net
interest expense. In nominal terms, net interest spending rises
from $224 billion in FY 2013 to $857 billion in 2023. During
the same period, it rises from 1.4 percent of GDP today to 3.3
percent of GDP in 2023.
Debt as a share of GDP will rise from 72.5 percent to 77
percent at the end of the budget window. Economists caution
that government leverage in excess of about 60 percent of the
economy is not sustainable for an extended period of time. When
debt is growing faster than a country's economy indefinitely,
that country's budget is on an unsustainable course, and it
accelerates over time to a crisis situation. Federal debt as a
burden on the economy has doubled in the past five years. This
higher debt burden and projections that it will continue to
rise will place an increasing drag on the economy, raise the
risk of a fiscal crisis, and limit the federal government's
capacity to respond to events.
CBO completed a study last month, entitled ``Macroeconomic
Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,'' which illustrated the
economic impact of both smaller and larger deficits compared to
the current trajectory. CBO examined three alternative budget
paths: 1) a deficit increase of $2 trillion over the next
decade compared to current law; 2) a deficit reduction of $2
trillion; and 3) a deficit reduction of $4 trillion. The study
concluded that reducing budget deficits is a net positive for
economic growth over time. Likewise, increasing budget deficits
is a net negative for economic growth over time. There is a
distinction between CBO's short-term and long-term effects from
these various budget paths. CBO's short-term economic models
are driven mainly by demand-side factors, and they show a
slight reduction in economic growth over the near term from
reducing the deficit. Similarly, the models show a temporary
increase in economic output over the near term from an increase
in deficits. Over the longer term, however, these results flip.
For instance, according to CBO, a $4 trillion deficit-reduction
package would reduce economic output by about 0.6 percent over
the short-term, but it would increase output by a much larger
amount--that is, by 1.7 percent--over the longer term, meaning
after 2017. The logic is that deficit reduction creates long-
term benefits because it increases the pool of national savings
and boosts investment, thereby raising economic growth and job
creation. In terms of what that higher long-term growth might
mean to the budget, CBO estimates that the economic benefit of
a $4 trillion deficit-reduction package (i.e., an increase in
the budget surplus or a decrease in the budget deficit) would
equal about $82 billion in deficit reduction in 2023.
FUNCTION-BY-FUNCTION PRESENTATION
----------
FUNCTION 050: NATIONAL DEFENSE
Function Summary
The first job of the federal government is securing the
safety and liberty of its citizens from threats at home and
abroad. Whether defeating the terrorists who attacked this
country on September 11, 2001, deterring the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, or battling insurgents who would
harbor terrorist networks that threaten Americans' lives and
livelihoods, the men and women of the United States' military
have performed superbly. As reflected in the National Defense
function, this budget provides for the best equipment,
training, and compensation for their continued success.
National Defense includes funds to compensate, train,
maintain, and equip the military forces of the United States.
More than 95 percent of the funding in this function goes to
Department of Defense military activities. The remainder funds
the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of
Energy, and other defense-related activities (primarily in
connection with homeland security).
Funding for the Department of Defense's non-enduring
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq is carried in Function 970
rather than in this function.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $560.2 billion in budget authority
and $579.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $552.0
billion in budget authority and $571.0 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $8.2 billion in budget authority
and $8.2 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $6.2 trillion and $6.0 trillion,
respectively.
Over the last four years, the Department of Defense has
repeatedly revised downward its estimates of the budgetary
resources necessary to meet the nation's security needs. Most
recently, then-Secretary Leon Panetta reduced defense-spending
plans by $487 billion over ten years and contemporaneously
announced a defense strategy designed to live within that
reduced budget. The key aspects of this revised defense program
are a so-called ``strategic pivot'' to the Asia--Pacific region
(emphasizing U.S. air and naval capabilities); a reduction in
military end-strength of 103,000 troops (primarily from the
ground forces); shrinking the planned naval fleet below the
long-held 313-ship benchmark; two new rounds of base closures
and realignments; and military-compensation reforms. In
announcing this defense program, Secretary Panetta made clear
that ``the bottom line is that there is little room here for a
significant modification if we want to preserve the force and
the capabilities that we believe we need in order to protect
the country and the fully assigned missions that we have to
deal with.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Leon Panetta, ``Major Budget Decisions Briefing from the
Pentagon,'' 26 January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of
the administration's budget request found that it underfunded
the defense program by 5 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Congressional Budget Office, ``Long-Term Implications of the
2013 Future Years Defense Program,'' July 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The automatic-enforcement procedures of the Budget Control
Act compound the challenge of maintaining the nation's
security, mandating just under a half trillion dollars in
additional reductions in planned defense budgets. Unless
legislation is enacted, this will result in nearly $1 trillion
in total reductions in planned defense spending relative to the
defense program put forward by then-Secretary Robert Gates in
2011. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin
Dempsey recently testified that ``our current security
challenges are more formidable and complex than those we faced
in downturns following war in Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War.
There is no foreseeable `peace dividend' on our horizon. The
security environment is increasingly competitive and
dangerous.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\General Martin Dempsey, Testimony to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, 12 February 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this ``increasingly competitive and dangerous''
environment, this budget assumes a level of defense spending
consistent with the administration's estimate of the budgetary
resources needed to execute its chosen defense strategy. While
this is significantly less than the levels in previous budget
resolutions passed by the House, it is approximately $500
billion more than will be available absent changes in the
Budget Control Act.
Illustrative Policy Options
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Supporting Our Men and Women in Uniform. Military personnel
costs have grown 27 percent in real terms since 2001 and now
consume almost one-third of the base budget for the Department
of Defense. Maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer military
requires robust compensation, while the dangers and stresses of
military life justify a premium when compared to federal
civilian pay. However, given the explosive growth in
compensation costs, the possibilities for reform must be
examined. The Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission established in the FY 2013 National
Defense Authorization Act is charged with developing
recommendations that (1) ensure the long-term viability of the
all-volunteer force; (2) enable a high quality of life for
military families; and (3) modernize and achieve fiscal
sustainability of the compensation and retirement systems.\4\
In future years, serious consideration should be given to the
Commission's recommendations if this defense program is going
to be achievable within existing budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Title VI, Subtitle H of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, P.L. 112-239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Modernization Challenge. A decade of war and years of
delayed and failed acquisition programs have resulted in an
impending need to simultaneously procure replacements for a
range of weapons systems in each of the services. For example,
the services have programs in place to begin replacing during
this budget window: (1) the air-superiority and strike-aircraft
fleets of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps; (2) the Army's
ground-combat vehicle fleet; (3) a substantial share of the
Navy's surface combatants; and (4) the bomber and submarine
legs of the nation's nuclear-deterrent force. These programs
represent only some of the more prominent defense capabilities
that will make claims on the defense-acquisition budget within
the budget window.
Compounding the fiscal challenge this procurement-bow wave
presents is the reality that defense acquisition has
consistently exceeded planned budgets. GAO reports that in
2011, the cost of the portfolio of DOD's major-acquisition
programs increased by 5 percent in real terms in just one
year.\5\ This is consistent with the long-term trend, such that
the CBO has estimated that DOD's identified acquisition needs
will cost 10 percent more than was included in the President's
most recent budget request.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Government Accountability Office, ``Defense Acquisitions:
Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs,'' March 2012.
\6\CBO, Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is too early to determine the results of the 2009 Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act and subsequent reforms, but it
is unlikely these reforms will in themselves be adequate to
fully resolve the mismatch between planned acquisitions and
likely available budgetary resources. Improving the
affordability of defense acquisitions will be an ongoing
challenge that merits continued congressional oversight.
Improving Defense Efficiency. The Department of Defense,
like all government agencies, has a responsibility to the
taxpayer to responsibly manage the resources available to it.
The inability of the Defense Department to receive a clean
audit calls into question whether DOD is fulfilling this
responsibility. Although the Department hopes to have its
statement of budgetary resources auditable by the end of fiscal
year 2014, full auditability is not expected until the end of
fiscal year 2017. Continued progress here and with the
Department's other efforts to reduce waste and bureaucracy will
be needed in order to make the defense program affordable.
FUNCTION 150: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
----------
Function Summary
The international-affairs budget is critical in advancing
U.S. strategic priorities and interests, especially those
relating to economic opportunities, national security, and
American values. This function includes the U.S. government's
spending for the following: international development, food
security, and humanitarian assistance; international security
assistance; the conduct of foreign affairs; foreign-information
and exchange activities; and international financial programs.
The primary agencies responsible for executing these programs
are the Departments of Agriculture, State, and Treasury, the
United States Agency for International Development, and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Since 2003, funding for the international-affairs budget
has grown exponentially, increasing by123 percent.
Unfortunately, the growth in spending is not reflected in a
comparable growth in results. Duplicative programs, programs
unrelated to the core missions of Function 150, and
inefficiencies are prevalent in the budget and need to be
addressed. This budget reflects a thorough re-evaluation of
accounts in Function 150 and prioritizes programs that are both
integral to the core budget and that effectively and
efficiently achieve desired results.
Funding for the State Department and USAID's interim
civilian activities for efforts relating to the global war on
terrorism is reflected in Function 970 rather than in this
account. These activities are also known as Overseas
Contingency Operations, and are primarily executed in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $41.0 billion in budget authority
and $42.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $38.7
billion in budget authority and $43.0 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $2.3 billion in budget authority
and -$1.0 billion in outlays. (The negative outlay figure
reflects receipts from foreign-military sales and foreign-
military-financing transactions). The ten-year totals for
budget authority and outlays are $430.6 billion and $413.2
billion, respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
Below are options committees of jurisdiction may wish to
consider when making final policy and funding decisions.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Eliminate Contributions to Clean Technology Fund and
Strategic Climate Fund. The Clean Technology and Strategic
Climate Funds were created by the Obama administration in 2010.
They support energy-efficient technologies intended to reduce
energy use and prevent climate change. Given the record-high
levels of deficits, the explosive growth in U.S. government
debt, and the heavy reliance on foreign financing, the federal
government is borrowing funds abroad to provide financial
assistance in this area, which is not a core U.S. foreign-
policy function. In addition, the government should not attempt
to pick winners and losers in terms of which technologies and
companies to favor and advance abroad. Therefore, the Committee
assumes elimination of both programs.
Reduce Education Exchange Programs. Function 150 includes
two education-exchange accounts intended to encourage mutual
understanding between Americans and citizens around the world
through scholarship and leadership programs: Educational and
Cultural Exchange Programs and the Open World Leadership
Center. Although this mission is laudable, exchange programs
are a non-essential component of the foreign-affairs budget and
should be reduced accordingly.
Reduce Contributions to International Organizations and
Programs. The United States makes voluntary contributions to
several multilateral organizations and programs. These
contributions are duplicative of funding provided in the
Contribution to International Organizations account, which
includes the obligatory payments to international organizations
with which the United States has signed treaties. Although this
budget fully funds the CIO account, it does not support
voluntary contributions to the duplicative International
Organizations and Programs account.
Eliminate Funding for Peripheral Foreign-Affairs
Institutions. The United States funds multiple independent
agencies and quasi-private institutions through the foreign-
affairs budget. Included in this list are the Inter-American
Foundation, the African Development Foundation, the East-West
Center, the Asia Foundation, and the Center for Middle Eastern-
Western Dialogue. These institutions all engage in activities
that are redundant of the State Department and USAID
activities. Consolidating and eliminating funding for multiple
institutions that perform similar tasks will make U.S.
engagement with the world more efficient and cost-effective.
Further, some of these organizations already receive private
funding, and could continue on with non-government funds.
Task MCC as Lead Agency on Foreign-Development Assistance.
The United States has two primary foreign-development
assistance programs: USAID's Development Assistance program and
the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Investing in foreign aid
and assisting other nations rise toward prosperity keeps the
United States safe and strengthens the economy by establishing
new trading partners and markets. However, development
assistance is worthwhile only if it produces results for aid
recipients.
America's experience with having two development-assistance
programs has shown that MCC's model has been more effective in
achieving results. MCC's emphasis on outputs rather than inputs
needs to be the foundation of all U.S. development-assistance
programs. Other elements of MCC's model that should be extended
throughout U.S. development-assistance programs include:
strict requirements on recipient countries
to prove strong commitments to good governance,
economic freedom, and investment in their citizens in
order to be considered for aid;
willingness of the U.S. government to
terminate assistance if an aid recipient starts
slipping on these critical commitments;
country ownership, which requires the
country to plan its own aid projects and lead
implementation; and
strict timelines for aid projects.
These principles are critical to ensuring the long-term
sustainability of projects once U.S. assistance concludes, thus
avoiding the creation of a culture of dependency on U.S. aid.
Further, MCC's model is resulting in the ``MCC Effect,'' where
countries are independently making reforms in favor of good
governance, economic freedom, and other MCC requirements, in
order to qualify for a compact. In 2010, USAID announced a
reform agenda, USAID Forward, and claims to be in the process
of adopting more accountable policy standards, country
ownership, and timetables. But success remains elusive. MCC's
model is more effective and efficient in delivering foreign
aid. And it results in the most benefits for the taxpayer
dollar. For these reasons, this budget proposes MCC to be the
lead agency on foreign-development assistance.
Eliminate Complex Crises Fund. Established in 2010 to
support stabilization activities and conflict prevention in
countries demonstrating high risks of insecurity, the CCF has
never been authorized by the committee of jurisdiction and is
duplicative of the missions performed by the recently re-
organized Bureau of Conflict Stabilizations at the State
Department. The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
is similarly responsible for developing a civilian capacity to
prevent and counter crises in nations where security issues are
of high concern. Due to mission overlap, eliminating the CCF
and allowing the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization
Operations to lead conflict prevention efforts are recommended.
Diplomatic Security. Although this budget does not assume
any savings from either the State Department's Diplomatic
Consular Programs or its Embassy Security, Construction, and
Maintenance accounts, there is concern regarding State
Department's prioritization of resources. The tragedy at the
U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya was not due to
budget constraints, but its consequences were exacerbated by
poor management by the State Department. Protecting American
officials and facilities overseas should be a top priority for
the State Department, and yet State has demonstrated different
priorities in its funding decisions:
1. In 2012, while requests for additional security to
Benghazi were denied by the State Department, the U.S. Embassy
in Vienna received a new charging station for its Chevy Volts
(electric cars), to combat climate change. The charging station
cost $100,000.
2. Staffing levels at U.S. posts around the world seem
inconsistent with the level of need. As of December 2011,
according to State, there were 44 federally funded positions in
the Bahamas, 55 in Barbados, 60 in Jamaica, 140 in Australia,
209 in Belgium, 170 in Canada, 167 in France, 509 in Germany,
145 in Switzerland, and 331 in the United Kingdom.
Both of these examples highlight a misallocation of
resources by the State Department during a time of fiscal
constraint. This budget recommends that the State Department
re-prioritize its resources and eliminate wasteful spending.
FUNCTION 250: GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
----------
Function Summary
The largest component of this function--about half of total
spending--is for the space-flight, research, and supporting
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. The function also contains general science
funding, including the budgets for the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $27.7 billion in budget authority
and $27.8 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $27.6
billion in budget authority and $27.7 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $100 million in budget authority
and $105 million in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $307.7 billion and $303.5 billion,
respectively.
The budget reduces excess and unnecessary spending, while
supporting core government responsibilities. The resolution
preserves basic research, providing stable funding for NSF to
conduct its authorized activities in science, space and
technology basic research, development, and STEM education. The
budget provides continued support for NASA and recognizes the
vital strategic importance of the United States' remaining the
pre-eminent space-faring nation. This budget aligns funding in
accordance with the NASA authorization and its specified
spending limits to support robust space capability, to allow
for exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and to support our
scientific as well as educational base.
Illustrative Policy Options
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
The committees of jurisdiction will determine policies to
align with the spending levels in the resolution. The options
below are offered as illustrations of the kinds of proposals
that can help meet the budget's fiscal guidelines.
Restore Core Government Responsibilities. Spending for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science includes some areas,
such as biological and environmental research, that could
potentially crowd out private investment. The resolution levels
support preserving the Office of Science's original role as a
venue for groundbreaking scientific discoveries and a driver of
innovation and economic growth, while responsibly paring back
applied and commercial research and development.
Reduce Expenses for the DHS's Directorate of Science and
Technology. The committee recommends reductions in management
and administrative expenses for the Department of Homeland
Security's Directorate of Science and Technology, while
shifting funding resources to frontline missions and
capabilities.
FUNCTION 270: ENERGY
----------
Function Summary
This category includes the civilian energy and
environmental programs of the Department of Energy. Function
270 also includes the Rural Utilities Service of the Department
of Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. It does not include DOE's national-security
activities--the National Nuclear Security Administration--which
are in Function 050, or its basic research and science
activities, which are in Function 250.
The administration continues to penalize economically
competitive sources of energy and to reward their uncompetitive
alternatives. In its 2013 report, the Congressional Budget
Office found total federal support for the development and
production of fuels and energy technologies--including both tax
expenditures and federal spending--totaled $20 billion, of
which ``half was directed toward energy efficiency and
renewable energy, 22 percent for nuclear energy, and 15 percent
for fossil energy.''1,}2 The White House provided
over six times the subsidies for these ``green energy''
programs, which the Energy Information Administration says also
produced the smallest amounts of energy.\3\ And the
administration refuses to answer for almost $16 billion spent
on ``stimulus'' grants--almost a quarter of them to European
and Asian renewable-energy companies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Terry Dinan, ``CBO Testifies on Federal Financial Support for
Fuels and Energy Technologies,'' Congressional Budget Office, 13 March
2013.
\2\Congressional Budget Office, ``How Much Does the Federal
Government Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy
Technologies,'' 6 March 2012.
\3\Energy Information Administration, ``Direct Federal Financial
Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010,'' July 2011.
\4\House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``American Taxpayer
Investment, Foreign Corporation Benefit,'' 17 January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the administration's loan-guarantee projects have
failed: Abound Solar, which received $400 million in loan
guarantees, was cited by the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment for hazardous waste left from their
failed solar panels.\5\ Another bankrupt grant recipient, A123,
intends to hand out as much as $4.2 million bonuses to top
executives as the company's assets are sold off.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Sandoval, Michael, ``Bankrupt Abound Solar to Bury Unused Solar
Panels in Cement.'' Heritage Foundation. 26 February 2013.
\6\Institute for Energy Research, ``DOE Spends Taxpayers Money
While A123 Goes Bankrupt,'' 20 November 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President has installed a heavy-handed compliance
culture dependent on regulations, favorable tax treatment, and
spending on administration-favored constituencies. This
administration has proposed more ``economically significant''
regulations in four years than previous administrations have in
the past 15 years combined. Since 2011, the White House has
generated over $294 billion in regulatory activity--and $215.9
billion in 2012 alone. Since the start of the administration,
the regulatory cost burden has increased more than $520
billion. Regulations have cost people and small businesses some
$1.75 trillion per year, according to a report from the Small
Business Administration, including $281 billion for
environmental regulations that disproportionately hit small
businesses.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of Regulatory
Costs on Small Firms,'' Small Business Research Survey, September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All energy sources should be developed without undue
government interference. However, the administration continues
to play the referee in picking winners and losers in the
market, and crowding out the private sector. Its officials have
promoted changes to explicitly raise energy costs. In 2008,
Steven Chu, who later became the Secretary of Energy for the
administration, said, ``Somehow we have to figure out how to
boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Then-
candidate Barack Obama agreed, arguing in January of 2008:
``Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates
would necessarily skyrocket.''
In an effort to make green energy more viable, the
administration is trying to make fossil fuels more expensive.
This was the idea behind the controversial ``cap and trade''
bill that President Obama tried and failed to pass through
Congress in 2009, which would have established an elaborate
bureaucratic structure for taxing and rationing conventional
energy sources. But instead of accepting this verdict on its
preferred policy, the administration continued to pursue its
climate initiatives by supporting the Environmental Protection
Agency's unilateral plan to impose emissions restrictions on
American businesses and consumers. In his last State of the
Union address, the President warned Congress if it did not pass
a cap-and-trade bill, he would regulate emissions via executive
fiat. The EPA is poised to make good on the President's threat
by abusing the powers granted in current law.
The results of misguided administration policies are clear
to see. According to the Department of Energy's Energy
Information Administration, gasoline prices averaged $3.68 a
gallon in 2012, the most expensive annual average according to
its data. That works out to $2,912 in average household
gasoline expenditures. The 2011 average was the second highest
at $3.58 a gallon. The administration has created additional
barriers for needed capital investment and job creation by
bypassing Congress and implementing regulations on its own. The
result is an administration that is bypassing Congress,
threatening high-wage jobs, increasing energy costs, and
hurting families' pocketbooks.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $2.9 billion in budget authority
and $5.5 billion in outlays in discretionary spending in fiscal
year 2014. Mandatory spending in 2014 is -$4.1 billion in
budget authority and -$4.1 billion in outlays. The negative
balances reflect the incoming repayment of loans, receipts from
the sale of electricity produced by federal entities, and
charges for the disposal of nuclear waste. These proceeds
offset spending in this function and result in this function
displaying negative spending levels. The ten-year totals for
budget authority and outlays are $33.3 billion and $36.5
billion, respectively, for discretionary spending. The ten-year
totals for budget authority and outlays are -$19.9 billion and
-$22.3 billion, respectively, for mandatory spending.
The current administration nearly doubled funding for the
Department of Energy during the President's first term,
excluding funding from the 2009 stimulus bill. The resolution
reduces funding for non-core energy research, loan guarantees
that subsidize corporations, and excess and unnecessary
spending in the DOE's civilian accounts.
Illustrative Policy Options
The committees of jurisdiction will determine the policies
to align spending with the levels in the resolution. The
options below are offered as illustrations of the kinds of
proposals that can help meet the budget's fiscal guidelines.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Reduce Administrative Costs at DOE. The resolution supports
streamlining and boosting accountability of vendor support and
administrative costs across DOE's offices. The Government
Accountability Office described the vendor selection and
procurement process as decentralized and fragmented in the
agency. This budget supports better governance and
consolidation of contract management and procurement processes
across functions to reduce costs.
Scale Back Corporate Subsidies in the Energy Industry. The
resolution provides sufficient funding for essential government
missions, including energy security and basic research and
development. It recommends paring back spending in areas of
duplication and non-core functions, such as applied and
commercial research and development projects best left to the
private sector. The budget aims to roll back such federal
intervention and corporate-welfare spending across energy
sectors.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Rescind Unobligated Balances in DOE's Green Subsidies and
Loan Portfolio. The budget recommends rescinding unobligated
balances in DOE's loan portfolio. Since its introduction in the
2009 stimulus bill, DOE has issued over $20 billion in new
loans and loan guarantees for private-sector loans for
renewable-energy projects that would not otherwise have been
market-viable.
The Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing program was
intended to provide debt capital to domestic auto manufacturers
to fund projects that help vehicles made in the United States
meet higher-mileage requirements. However, the funds have
largely been unused as production has not met current demand.
Loan beneficiaries have included manufacturers shifting jobs
overseas, such as Fisker, which provided over $500 million and
ended up assembling cars in Finland.
Moreover, Americans deserve the most honest, accurate
assessment of how Washington spends their tax dollars. Yet the
costs of DOE's loans are currently calculated using the
inadequate methodology prescribed in the Federal Credit Reform
Act. Under FCRA rules, government-backed loans are discounted
at risk-free interest rates--the interest rates on U.S.
Treasury securities. As CBO has stated and the White House's
own independent analysis has acknowledged, by incorporating
market-based risk premiums, fair-value estimates recognize the
financial risks that the government assumes when issuing
credit. The White House's independent report noted that these
DOE loans may increase taxpayers' financial liability. It
stated, ``If the eventual actual loss exceeds the Credit
Subsidy Cost, that incremental loss is absorbed by the
taxpayers.''
Repeal Stimulus-Driven Borrowing Authority Specifically for
Green Transmission. The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in
the Western Area Power Administration's Transmission
Infrastructure Program provides loans to develop new
transmission systems aimed solely at integrating renewable
energy. This authority was inserted into the stimulus bill
without the opportunity for debate. Of most concern, the
authority includes a bailout provision that would require
American taxpayers to pay outstanding balances on projects that
private developers fail to repay.
Eliminates Oil and Gas Research and Development Program.
The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other
Petroleum Research Fund is primarily operated by a private-
sector consortium and duplicates efforts already made by the
private investors. The resolution supports prioritizing federal
funding and preventing federal subsidies for private
corporations and who should rely on private investment.
FUNCTION 300: NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
----------
Function Summary
The budget resolution recognizes the importance of Function
300 activities--which include water resources, conservation,
environmental, land management, and recreational programs--but
bigger government has not equated to better government, and the
increase in spending in this function has only invited
mismanagement and duplication.
The fiscal year 2014 budget resolution builds on last
year's resolution and supports the nation's enduring energy-
policy priorities--economic prosperity, lower gasoline and
energy prices, and greater domestic energy production--while
moving toward market-based solutions for sustainable-energy
sources. The resolution draws on the House Republicans'
American Energy Initiative, which seeks to advance an all-of-
the-above energy approach for the United States.
One of the President's very first initiatives was to cancel
oil leases on onshore federal lands and to delay the offshore
leasing plan. The administration's opposition to domestic
drilling continued with a 2012-2017 Offshore Lease Plan
Proposal that imposed the same moratorium that had been lifted
in 2008. Production on federally controlled lands declined from
2010 to 2011 by 14 percent and even with skyrocketing energy
costs, the President refuses to approve the Keystone XL
Pipeline project. The construction of the Keystone XL Energy
Pipeline would create more than 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000
indirect jobs. If approved and constructed, the pipeline would
contribute an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes to
communities along the route during the life of the pipeline.
The economic benefits of expanding oil and gas development
on federal lands are well documented: According to recent
studies, 500,000 new jobs a year in high-wage, high-skill
employment sectors and GDP spill-over effects for $14.4
trillion in cumulative increased economic activity would be
generated over the next 30 years. But the federal government is
standing in the way.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Dr. Joseph R Mason, ``Beyond the Congressional Budget Office:
The Additional Economic Effects of Immediately Opening Federal Lands to
Oil and Gas Leasing,'' Institute for Energy Research, February 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While U.S oil production is at its highest level in two
decades, 100 percent of this increase is due to production on
non-federal lands.\2\ Meanwhile, the federal government owns
nearly one-third of the land in the country. That is an area
roughly four times the area of the state of Texas. Substantial
volumes of oil and gas are known to lie under these government
lands. According to the Congressional Research Service, the
U.S.'s combined recoverable natural-gas, oil, and coal
endowment is the largest on earth--not Russia's, Saudi
Arabia's, or China's. Our country has 163 billion barrels of
recoverable oil and enough natural gas to meet the country's
demand for 90 years.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``New [CRS] Report
Chronicles Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Declining Under
Obama's Watch,'' 5 March 2013.
\3\Carl Behrens and Gene Whitney, ``U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources:
Terminology, Reporting and Summary,'' Congressional Research Service,
30 November 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Resources and Environment category consists of
major departments and agencies such as the Department of the
Interior, which includes the National Park Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service; conservation-oriented and land management
agencies within the Department of Agriculture, including the
Forest Service; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in the Department of Commerce; the Army Corps of
Engineers; and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
discussion below elaborates on the budget resolution's
recommended policies in these areas.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $38.1 billion in budget authority
and $41.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary
budget authority in 2014 totals $33.5 billion, with $38.1
billion in related outlays; mandatory spending is $4.6 billion
in budget authority and $2.9 billion in outlays. Over ten
years, budget authority totals $385.2 billion, and outlays are
$399.9 billion.
Illustrative Policy Options
The resolution focuses on paring back unnecessary spending
being used to carry out overreaching regulatory expansion. This
budget also emphasizes core government responsibilities, while
reducing spending in areas of duplication or non-core
functions. While the actual policies will be determined by the
committees of jurisdiction, options to meet budget targets
include those listed below.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Focus on Maintaining Existing Land Resources. Annual
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund has typically
ranged between $250 million and $450 million. The President's
budget requested $257 million for fiscal year 2013, but this
allocation cannot be used for maintenance. The federal
government already is struggling with a maintenance backlog on
the millions of acres it controls--a backlog totaling between
$17 and $22 billion--but the administration is seeking to
acquire even more land. This budget focuses on eliminating the
maintenance backlog before moving to acquire additional lands.
Streamline Climate-Change Activities across Government.
This budget resolution reduces spending for government-wide
climate change-related activities and recommends better
coordination of programs and funds to eliminate duplicative and
unnecessary spending.
Streamline Fragmented and Overlapping Agency Programs. The
resolution supports consolidating programs across federal
agencies and reducing spending in areas identified by the
Government Accountability Office, and bipartisan deficit-
reduction commissions. GAO identified 14 fragmented programs at
Energy, Transportation, and EPA, whose missions cover reducing
mobile-source diesel emissions, resulting in duplication of
efforts and unnecessary funding sometimes going to the same
recipients. The President's Fiscal Commission also identified
hundreds of millions of dollars in water-treatment efforts
duplicated across the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and USDA,
not pertaining in some cases to these agencies' core missions.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Expand Onshore and Offshore Energy Production. Despite
access to abundant domestic resources, the federal government
has adopted policies that largely prevent American production
of oil and natural gas. For the country to break free of
excessive dependence on foreign energy supplies, it requires
producing more energy at home.
Unlocking domestic energy supplies in a safe,
environmentally responsible manner will increase revenues from
bonus bids, rental payments, royalties, and fees. The budget
allows for further access in areas such as Alaska, the Outer
Continental Shelf, including the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Intermountain West.
Finally, the budget encourages the development of American-
made renewable- and alternative-energy sources, including
nuclear, wind, solar, and more, affirming the position that
environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually
exclusive goals.
Revise and Reauthorize the Bureau of Land Management's
Land-Sales Process. Instead of requiring that all proceeds from
land sales be used to acquire other parcels of land and to
cover sales expenses, this option would direct that 70 percent
of the proceeds, net of expenses, go to the Treasury for the
purposes of deficit reduction by reauthorizing and revising the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act and other land-
management statutes. It would limit the Department of the
Interior's share of the receipts to $60 million per year (plus
an additional amount to cover BLM's administrative costs) for
land-acquisition and restoration projects on BLM lands. The
option would also reduce the amount of federal spending not
subject to regular oversight through the congressional
appropriation process. The change would reduce the federal
budget deficit and ensure that U.S. taxpayers benefit directly
from land sales.
Reform Mine-Cleanup Payments and Prevent Non-Mine Cleanup
Expenditures. The federal government collects fees from coal-
mining companies to restore abandoned mining sites. Money from
those fees is paid to states to restore abandoned mines within
their state. However, this program authorizes millions of
dollars paid from the Treasury for projects unrelated to
abandoned coal-mine cleanup. The budget recommends reforming
this program to target expenditures to its intended purpose.
Reflect Current Value for the Use of Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir. Since 1913, the city of San Francisco has paid an
annual $30,000 fee or less to the federal government for its
use of the O'Shaughnessy Dam and the accompanying Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir within Yosemite National Park. San Francisco
generates approximately $40 million in annual hydropower
revenues from the Hetch Hetchy system, yet has only paid at
most $30,000 annually--or 7 cents an acre for almost 100
years--not indexed to inflation. This proposal would remove the
century-old fee structure to the city without affecting
wholesale customers and irrigation districts.
Expand Access to Federal Helium Reserves. Under current
law, the Federal Helium Program operated by the Bureau of Land
Management will end in October 2013 as a result of debt
repayment. The resolution assumes the establishment a new free-
market program that expands access to the federal helium
reserve to more participants, ensures market transparency and
fair play, and increases competition--all to ensure a better
return to the American taxpayers.
FUNCTION 350: AGRICULTURE
----------
Function Summary
The agriculture function includes funds for direct
assistance and loans to food and fiber producers; export
assistance; market information; inspection services; and
agricultural research. Farm policy is driven by the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008--otherwise known as the
Farm Bill--which provides farmers protection against
uncertainties, such as poor weather conditions and unfavorable
market conditions.
Farm-support programs are divided into three areas:
commodity programs, crop insurance, and supplemental disaster
assistance. Commodity programs, which the Farm Bill has
authorized through the 2013 crop-marketing year, include both
direct payments and price-based counter-cyclical payments; the
marketing-assistance loan program; and the average crop-revenue
election-payment program. Due to recent strength in
agricultural markets, outlays for price-based programs have
declined. Nevertheless, direct payments, which do not vary with
market prices, have remained steady at $5 billion each year.
Crop insurance outlays, while volatile, have trended sharply
higher and averaged $5.6 billion over 2008-10, more than double
their 2000-02 average level. Crop-insurance outlays under the
CBO baseline average $8.4 billion over 2014-2023.
With farm income, crop prices, and federal deficits hitting
new highs, and with food prices going up, it is time to reform
agricultural-support programs, while maintaining a strong
safety net for farmers.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $21.7 billion in budget authority
and $20.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary
spending in fiscal year 2014 is $6.0 billion in budget
authority and $6.0 billion in outlays; mandatory spending, the
majority of the function's total, is $15.7 billion in budget
authority, with outlays of $14.4 billion. The ten-year totals
for budget authority and outlays are $196.2 billion and $190.5
billion, respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
Specific policies in this function will be determined by
the committees of jurisdiction. Among the options they may wish
to consider are the following.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Reform Agricultural Commodity and Insurance Programs. Under
this option, mandatory agricultural outlays, other than food
and nutrition programs, will be reduced by $31.3 billion
relative to the currently anticipated levels from fiscal year
2014 through fiscal year 2023. These savings could be achieved
by reducing both direct payments and crop-insurance subsidies,
and by reforming export-assistance programs. The Committee on
Agriculture is responsible for implementing these reductions,
and to maintain the committee's flexibility, this option
assumes the savings will not take effect until the beginning of
the next Farm Bill. Farmers will benefit greatly from other
provisions in this budget, including regulatory relief,
fundamental tax reform, and stronger economic growth as the
burden of federal deficits is lifted from the economy.
FUNCTION 370: COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT
----------
Function Summary
The Commerce and Housing Credit function includes mortgage
credit; the Postal Service (mostly off budget); deposit
insurance; and most of the activities of the Departments of
Commerce and Housing and Urban Development. The mortgage-credit
component of this function includes housing assistance through
the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal National
Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, the Government National Mortgage Association, and
rural housing programs of the Department of Agriculture. The
function also includes net postal-service spending and spending
for deposit-insurance activities of banks, thrifts, and credit
unions. Finally, most of the Commerce Department is provided
for in this function, including the International Trade
Administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Patent and
Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, and the Bureau of the Census. Also funded
through this function are independent agencies such as the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal
Communications Commission, and the majority of the Small
Business Administration.
The federal government's commerce and housing activities
should focus limited resources on efforts to bolster free
enterprise and economic growth. Such an approach would have the
additional direct benefit of reducing government spending,
easing the demand for higher taxes or more borrowing, and
curbing corporate welfare in the housing, financial-services,
and telecommunications industries. This budget calls for an end
to the cycle of future bailouts perpetuated by the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as
putting a stop to taxpayer subsidies and bailouts for Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
In this function, the budget resolution provides for $1.1
billion in budget authority and -$10.5 billion in outlays in
fiscal year 2014. Of that total, 2014 discretionary spending is
-$10.7 billion in budget authority and -$10.1 billion in
outlays. Mandatory spending in 2014 is $11.7 billion in budget
authority and -$0.4 billion in outlays. The function totals
over ten years are -$44.8 billion in budget authority and
-$216.1 billion in outlays.
On-budget totals for fiscal year 2014 are $2.5 billion in
budget authority and -$9.0 billion in outlays. Of these
amounts, discretionary budget authority is -$10.9 billion, with
outlays of -$10.4 billion as well. Mandatory on-budget spending
for fiscal year 2014 is $13.5 billion in budget authority and
$1.4 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the on-budget totals
are -$26.0 billion in budget authority and -$197.3 billion in
outlays.
Negative discretionary totals for budget authority and
outlays mainly reflect the negative subsidy rates applied to
certain loan and loan-guarantee programs scored under the
guidelines of the Federal Credit Reform Act, such as FHA and
Ginnie Mae programs. It should be noted that FHA loans are
scored using a different accounting method than the fair-value
estimates that CBO applies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
resulting in budget disparities (see discussion under Mandatory
Spending).
Off-budget totals for fiscal year 2014 are -$1.5 billion in
budget authority and -$1.5 billion in outlays. Of these
amounts, discretionary budget authority is $0.3 billion in
budget authority and $0.3 in outlays. Over ten years, the
discretionary off-budget totals are $3.1 billion in budget
authority and $3.1 billion in outlays. Mandatory off-budget
spending for fiscal year 2014 is -$1.7 billion in budget
authority and -$1.7 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the
mandatory off-budget totals are -$22.0 billion in budget
authority and -$22.0 billion in outlays. The negative totals
for budget authority and outlays in the off-budget portion of
this function represent savings from the two recommended policy
proposals described below in addition to monies received by the
Treasury from the U.S. Postal Service Public Enterprise Fund.
Illustrative Policy Options
The resolution aims to limit and reform programs in this
function to reduce spending; to limit the federal government's
role in housing, financial, and telecommunications markets; and
to curtail the corporate welfare that distorts and misdirects
the flow of capital in the free market. While the committees of
jurisdiction will determine the actual policies in pursuit of
these goals, the options below offer several potential
approaches.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Eliminate Corporate Welfare within the Department of
Commerce. Business subsidies distort the economy, impose unfair
burdens on taxpayers, and are especially problematic given the
fiscal problems facing the U.S. government. With potential
savings of roughly $7 billion over ten years, programs that
should be considered for elimination include the following:
The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Program,
which subsidizes a network of nonprofit extension centers that
provide technical, financial, and marketing services for small
and medium-size businesses that are largely available in the
private market. The program already obtains two-thirds of its
funding from non-federal sources, and was originally intended
to be self-supporting.
Trade Promotion Activities at the International
Trade Administration [ITA]. This agency, within the Department
of Commerce, provides trade-promotion services for U.S.
companies. The fees it charges for these services do not cover
the cost of these activities. Businesses can obtain similar
services from state and local governments and the private
market. The ITA should be eliminated or charge for the full
cost of these services.
Tighten the Belts of Government Agencies. Duplication,
hidden subsidies, and large bureaucracies are symptomatic of
many agencies within Function 370. Among them are the
following:
The Small Business Administration. The SBA
provides almost $60 million in grants, hidden in its
discretionary salaries and expenses budget, which could be
canceled.
The Securities and Exchange Commission. In fiscal
year 2013, the SEC estimates that it will spend $1.6 billion on
salaries and expenses, with $943 million going to compensation
and benefits alone. The SEC has about 4,500 full-time employees
at the end of 2012, with an average compensation and benefits
package of about $209,000 per employee. The SEC's budget has
swollen by 73 percent since 2008.
In its 2013 Views and Estimates, the House Committee on
Financial Services notes the regulatory failures of the SEC
leading up to the financial crisis:
In the run-up to the financial crisis and its
aftermath, the SEC repeatedly failed to fulfill any
part of its mission: the SEC failed to adequately
supervise the nation's largest investment banks, which
resulted in the bailout of Bear Stearns and the
collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing financial
panic; the SEC failed to supervise the credit rating
agencies that bestowed AAA ratings on securities that
later proved to be no better than junk; the SEC failed
to ensure that issuers made adequate disclosures to
investors about securities cobbled together from poorly
underwritten mortgages that were bound to fail; and the
SEC was missing in action as Bernard Madoff and Allen
Stanford perpetrated the two largest Ponzi schemes in
U.S. history. These failures have taken place despite
significant increases in funding at the SEC, which has
seen its budget nearly triple over the past decade.
This resolution questions the premise that more funding for
the SEC means better, smarter regulation. Adding reams of
regulations to the books and scores of regulators to the
payrolls will not provide greater transparency, consumer
protection, and enforcement for increasingly complex markets.
At a time when trimming the deficit is imperative, the SEC
should streamline and make more efficient its operations and
resources; defray taxpayer expenses by designating self-
regulatory organizations (subject to SEC oversight) to perform
needed examinations of investment advisors; and enhance
collaboration with other agencies, such as the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, to reduce duplication, waste, and
overlap in supervision. Ultimately, the committees of
jurisdiction will establish the specific policies.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Terminate Grants to Worsted-Wool Manufacturers and Payments
to Wool Manufacturers. The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical
Corrections Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429) established the
Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund. This fund authorizes the
Department of Commerce to provide grants to certain
manufacturers of worsted-wool products to ease adjustment to
changes in trade law. The grants, originally slated to end in
2007, still exist and have been extended until 2014.
Termination of this temporary grant program is overdue. This
Act also directs Customs to make payments to wool manufacturers
from certain duties collected to provide import tax relief.
This account has been extended twice through amendments and has
also outlived its original purpose.
Terminate Corporation for Travel Promotion. In 2010, the
Congress established a new annual payment to the travel
industry and created a new government agency, the Corporation
for Travel Promotion (now called Brand USA), to conduct
advertising campaigns encouraging foreign travelers to visit
the United States. This budget recommends ending these
subsidies and eliminating the new agency because it is not a
core responsibility of the federal government to pay for and
conduct advertising campaigns for a certain industry. Moreover,
the travel industry can and should pay for the advertising that
it benefits from.
Restrict New FDIC Authority to Bail Out Bank Creditors.
Dodd-Frank expands and centralizes power in Washington,
doubling down on the root causes of the 2008 crisis. It
contains layer upon layer of new bureaucracy sewn together by
complex regulations, yet it fails to address key problems, such
as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that contributed to the worst
financial meltdown in recent history. Although the bill is
dubbed ``Wall Street Reform,'' it actually intensifies the
problem of too-big-to-fail by giving large, interconnected
financial institutions advantages that small firms will not
enjoy.
Although the proponents of Dodd-Frank went to great lengths
to denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them. The Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation now has the authority to access
taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of large,
``systemically significant'' financial institutions. CBO
estimates the cost for this new authority at $33 billion,
though CBO Director Elmendorf has testified that ``the cost of
the program will depend on future economic and financial events
that are inherently unpredictable.'' In other words, another
large-scale financial crisis in which creditors are guaranteed
government bailouts could cost much, much more.
This resolution calls for ending this regime, now enshrined
into law, which paves the way for future bailouts. House
Republicans put forth an enhanced bankruptcy alternative that--
instead of rewarding corporate failure with taxpayer dollars--
would place the responsibility for large, failing firms in the
hands of the shareholders who own them, the managers who run
them, and the creditors who finance them.
This resolution also supports cancelling the ability of the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (created by Dodd-Frank)
to fund its operations by spending from the Federal Reserve's
yearly remittances to the Treasury Department. Dodd-Frank was
written to provide off-budget financing for the new Bureau,
which is housed within the Federal Reserve but enjoys complete
autonomy. To preserve its independence as the nation's monetary
authority, the Federal Reserve is off budget and its excess
earnings from monetary operations are returned to the Treasury
to reduce the deficit. Now, instead of directing these
remittances to reduce the deficit, Dodd-Frank requires
diverting a portion of them to pay for a new bureaucracy with
the authority to write far-reaching rules on financial products
and restrict credit to the very customers it seeks to
``protect,'' outside the annual oversight of Congress through
the appropriations process.
Privatize the Business of Government-Controlled Mortgage
Giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Absent major reforms, Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac are expected to have an all-in cost to
taxpayers of $330 billion through 2023 according to CBO
estimates. This includes losses on preexisting commitments--
those entered into prior to the 2008 conservatorship--of about
$248 billion. CBO has recorded Fannie and Freddie as explicit
financial components of the Federal budget, accounting for
their liabilities as liabilities of the government. In
contrast, the administration does not fully account for
taxpayer exposure to Fannie and Freddie, leaving the entities
off budget.
So far, Treasury has already provided $187 billion in
bailouts to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and
Ginnie Mae now dominate the market for the issuance of new
mortgage-backed securities with a combined 99 percent market
share.
This budget recommends putting an end to corporate
subsidies and taxpayer bailouts in housing finance. It
envisions the eventual elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, winding down their government guarantee and ending
taxpayer subsidies. In the interim, it supports removing
distortions to allow an influx of private capital and advancing
various measures that would bring transparency and
accountability to these two government-sponsored enterprises.
Reform the Credit Reform Act To Incorporate Fair-Value
Accounting Principles. As the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie
continue, another bailout to a housing giant looms. The market
share of government agencies in the primary mortgage-insurance
market is approximately 70 percent, the majority of which is
FHA. There has been a constant, dangerous reduction in the
capital ratio of FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which is
supposed to protect the FHA from unforeseen losses. The MMIF is
currently -1.44 percent--far below the Fund's congressionally-
mandated ratio of 2 percent.
Given the precarious financial position of the FHA, the
government should adopt measures to control the assumption of
risk by FHA as other government-backed entities (e.g., Fannie
and Freddie) are wound down. Right now, the budget accounts for
the risks carried by FHA differently than how it accounts for
those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These differences simply
encourage just such a shift in risk.
The cost of FHA-insured loans are scored by calculating the
net present value of the cash flows associated with loans and
discounting those flows using risk-free marketable Treasury
security rate. In contrast, CBO uses fair-value accounting for
Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-guaranteed loans. Fair-value
accounting recognizes that adverse economic events such as
market downturns can cause loan defaults to rise, thus it
reflects the full financial risk incurred by the taxpayer of
backing these loans. In other words, the current budgetary
treatment of FHA loans understates the full costs associated
with them, thus it encourages policymakers to shift risk from
Fannie and Freddie to FHA.
This resolution requires CBO to provide supplemental
estimates using fair-value scoring for federally-backed
mortgages and mortgage-backed securities regardless of which
agency of the federal government is acting as the insurer or
guarantor.
As the government reforms its role in the U.S. housing
markets, which this resolution supports, Fannie, Freddie and
FHA loans should be treated with parity and full transparency.
The housing-finance system of the future, however, should allow
private-market secondary lenders to fairly, freely, and
transparently compete, with the knowledge that they will
ultimately bear appropriate risk for the loans they guarantee.
Their viability will be determined by the soundness of their
practices and the value of their services.
OFF-BUDGET MANDATORY SPENDING
Reform the Postal Service. The United States Postal Service
is unable to meet its financial obligations and is in desperate
need of structural reforms. USPS's financial troubles include
an estimated $2 billion operating loss in 2013 and $17 billion
of payments owed to provide promised health-benefit
compensation for Postal retirees and a total unfunded liability
of $45 billion.
The budget recommends giving the Postal Service the
flexibility that any business needs to respond to changing
market conditions, including declining mail volume, which is
down more than 20 percent since 2006. The budget also
recognizes the need to reform compensation of postal employees
who currently pay a smaller share of the costs of their health
and life-insurance premiums than other federal employees. Taken
together, these reforms are estimated to save about $22 billion
over ten years and would help restore USPS solvency.
FUNCTION 400: TRANSPORTATION
----------
Function Summary
This budget function includes ground, air, water, and other
transportation funding. The major agencies and programs here
include the Department of Transportation (which includes the
Federal Aviation Administration the Federal Highway
Administration; the Federal Transit Administration; highway,
motor-carrier, rail, and pipeline-safety programs; and the
Maritime Administration); the Department of Homeland Security
(including the Federal Air Marshals, the Transportation
Security Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard); the
aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; and the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $87.1 billion in budget authority
and $93.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary
budget authority in 2014 is $31.5 billion, with outlays of $91
billion; and mandatory spending is $55.6 billion in budget
authority and $2.2 billion in outlays. The large discrepancies
between budget authority and outlays here results from the
split treatment of the transportation trust funds, such as the
Highway Trust Fund, through which funding is provided as a type
of mandatory budget authority; and outlays, which are
controlled by annual limitations on obligations set in
appropriations acts. Over ten years, budget authority totals
$801.3 billion, with outlays of $845.2 billion.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)
surface transportation authorization act provided stable
funding for major construction projects. Ahead of the
President's FY 2014 infrastructure proposals, MAP-21 already
included important reforms to streamline regulatory barriers
and incorporate performance information into highway, transit,
and safety programs to prioritize projects. It additionally
consolidated or eliminated 70 DOT programs. The budget includes
MAP-21 levels of funding until its expiration in FY 2015.
Maintaining the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the
tradition of the trust fund being user fee supported is a
priority. While the Highway Trust Fund is solvent through 2014,
efforts need to be made to find a long-term solution to the
trust fund's financial challenges. The budget recognizes the
need for continued reforms in this area to adequately maintain,
improve, and--where appropriate--expand infrastructure. Though
the federal-aid highway program was intended to be fully
financed by gas-tax revenues, the fund has recently operated at
spending levels well in excess of gas-tax receipts. The Highway
Trust Fund's financing shortfall has been building for years.
Over the next decade, CBO anticipates this gap to continue to
increase under current spending levels and policy, causing the
Highway Trust Fund to run average annual cash deficits of $13
to $14 billion.
As a result of these chronic shortfalls, the trust fund has
required three large general-fund contributions totaling $35
billion since 2008 in addition to a general-fund transfer of
$27.5 billion for transportation in the 2009 stimulus. MAP-21
included $18.8 billion in general-fund transfers that were for
the first time offset by spending reductions in other programs.
Despite these large recent infusions, CBO estimates that
the Highway Trust Fund still faces insolvency sometime in 2015
once MAP-21 expires. Over the next decade, CBO projects a
growing gap causing the Highway Trust Fund to run cash deficits
of over $126 billion within the budget window.
A loophole in budget rules allows Congress to bail out the
Highway Trust Fund without the transfer of taxpayer resources
being recorded as a net increase in spending or deficits. The
budget resolution once again includes a reform to close this
loophole to ensure any future transfer is fully offset. Instead
of continuing to rely on general-fund transfers for solvency
going forward, the Congress needs to address the systemic
factors that have been driving the trust fund's bankruptcy.
Congress also needs to continue to reform the critical surface-
transportation infrastructure and safety programs to put them
on sound financial footing.
Excluding the stimulus, funding for the Department of
Transportation increased by 547.6 percent in the
administration's first two years. The budget supports
maintaining essential funding for surface transportation,
aviation, and safety--offset by reductions in other
transportation activities of lower priority to the federal
government. As is true elsewhere, actual policy decisions will
be determined by the committees of jurisdiction. The options
below suggest one set of policies that can help meet the
budget's levels.
Illustrative Policy Options
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Eliminate Funding for High-Speed Rail and Amtrak Operating
Subsidies. High-speed-rail projects and any new intercity-rail
projects should be pursued only if they can be established as
self-supporting commercial services. In addition, the budget
supports removing Amtrak's subsidies that have been insulating
Amtrak from making the needed structural reforms to start
producing returns. The 1997 Amtrak authorization law required
Amtrak to operate free of subsidies by 2002. The budget
supports continued reforms for Amtrak--including requiring
overtime limits for its employees and a review of executive
salaries--as well as reductions in headquarters and
administrative costs for agencies.
Reductions in Transportation Security Agency Funding.
Enhanced operational efficiencies can be obtained without
compromising security priorities. Since 2007, Congress has
increased TSA's budget by 18 percent, yet passenger traffic has
decreased. Inefficient procurement practices led to over $150
million on unused screening equipment in expensive storage
facilities. Risk-based passenger-screening programs should
proceed with validation of methodology. Moreover, TSA has
denied applications from airports to opt out of federal
screener operations without adequate justification.
Applications for private screening that meet security
requirements and could improve cost-efficiency goals should be
approved expeditiously.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Ensure Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. The budget
recognizes that the Highway Trust Fund is projected by CBO to
run negative balances by FY 2015 under current levels of
spending. By existing law and cash management practices, the
Department of Transportation would need to slow down or reduce
spending upon the exhaustion of trust fund balances. Congress
needs to reform this critically important trust fund to put it
on a sound financial footing--without further bailouts that
increase the deficit.
The budget recommends sensible reforms to avert the
bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund by aligning spending from
the Trust Fund with incoming revenues collected. The budget
also includes a provision to ensure any future general-fund
transfers will be fully offset. Further, the budget recognizes
the need to explore innovative financing mechanisms to support
surface-transportation infrastructure and safety programs, for
example, with further public-private sector partnerships
demonstrated in the TIFIA program. The budget also recommends
giving states more flexibility to fund the highway projects
they feel are most critical. One possible reform could include
a pilot program for states to fund their transportation
priorities with state revenues, opt out of the federal gas tax,
and forgo federal allocations.
Phase Out Subsidies for Essential Air Service. EAS is a
classic example of a temporary government program that has
become immortal. EAS funding--originally intended to provide
transitional assistance to small communities to adjust to the
airline deregulation in the late 1970s--has not only continued,
but has grown rapidly in recent years.
Simplify the Fee Structure and Help Offset Costs in
Aviation Security. Taxpayers currently subsidize more than 60
percent of the cost of aviation security for the travelers who
use and directly benefit from the system. This burden could be
eased by shifting greater responsibility to these direct
beneficiaries. One way to do so would be by applying a simple
flat fee of $5 per one-way trip for security system users,
instead of a $2.50 fee for a one-way trip with no stops and a
$5 fee for a trip with one or more stops.
Terminate the Ocean Freight Differential Program for Food
Aid. Current law requires the Department of Transportation to
reimburse other Federal agencies for the extra costs the
agencies pay because of legal requirements that food aid be
shipped on U.S. ships. The budget exempts food aid from this
required reimbursement, which needlessly adds to taxpayer cost
for these humanitarian missions.
FUNCTION 450: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
----------
Function Summary
This function includes programs that provide federal
funding for economic and community development in both urban
and rural areas, including: Community Development Block Grants;
the non-power activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority; the
regional commissions, including the Appalachian Regional
Commission; the Economic Development Administration; and
partial funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Homeland Security spending in this function includes the
state- and local-government grant programs of the Department of
Homeland Security, including part of the funding for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Aside from those programs related to emergency preparedness
and critical needs, this resolution supports streamlining non-
essential community and regional initiatives that are not core
functions of the federal government.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $8.5 billion in budget authority
and $27.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary
budget authority in 2014 is $8 billion, with $26.2 billion in
associated outlays. Mandatory spending in 2014 is $566 million
in budget authority and $1.5 billion in outlays. The ten-year
totals for budget authority and outlays are $88.2 billion and
$139.4 billion, respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
As elsewhere, the committees of jurisdiction will make
final policy determinations. The proposals below indicate
policy options that might be considered.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Eliminate Non-Core Programs. At a time when shrinking
spending is imperative for the government's fiscal well-being,
this resolution recommends taking a hard look at community and
regional programs; focusing on those that deliver funds for
non-core federal-government functions; and consolidating and
streamlining programs wherever possible. Among programs that
should be considered in this review are the following:
The Community Development Fund. Historically, about 80 to
90 percent of funding for the CDF is spent on the Community
Development Block Grant. CDBG is an annual formula grant
directed to state and local governments to address a broad
array of initiatives. In 2013, $3.5 billion was appropriated
for CDBG. Currently, there is no maximum community-poverty rate
to be eligible for funds, nor is there an exclusion for
communities with high average income.
Focus DHS Urban Area Security Initiative grants to Tier 1
Cities. UASI grants to over 30 cities have not produced
measurable results for the most critical cities. This proposal
would limit the grants to Tier 1, or the top ten cities, on a
risk-based formula basis.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Reforms. The budget
supports implementation of FEMA reforms passed by Congress to
improve service delivery and cost-efficiencies in state and
local programs. The budget also supports efforts in the House-
passed FEMA reauthorization including measures to help states
and localities use existing supplies and equipment in FEMA's
inventory to help communities recover from disasters
expeditiously and cost-effectively.
The budget also acknowledges the need to look at reforms in
disaster-relief assistance to ensure that those state and local
governments most in need are receiving the assistance required.
The past three administrations have issued a total of 2,213
disaster declarations--66 percent of all FEMA disaster
declarations since 1953.\1\ In 2011, the current administration
shattered the records for the number of FEMA declarations in
one year: 242. The prior high was 158 declarations set in 1996.
According to the Government Accountability Office, this is part
of a broader trend.\2\ From 2002 to 2011, presidents have
declared 35 percent more disasters than they did during the
preceding decade. The disaster declaration is intended as a
process to help state and local governments receive federal
assistance when the severity and magnitude of the disaster
exceeds state and local resources, and when federal assistance
is absolutely necessary. When disaster-relief decisions are not
made judiciously, limited resources are diverted away from
communities that are truly in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Matt Mayer, ``Congress Should Limit the Presidential Abuse of
FEMA,'' Heritage Foundation, January 2012.
\2\Government Accountability Office, ``2012 Annual Report:
Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve
Savings, and Enhance Revenue,'' February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget supports GAO recommendations and takes a closer
look at: (1) reducing federal expenditures by updating
disaster-declaration-eligibility indicators, like per capita
thresholds and other major disaster metrics, by (for example)
adjusting for inflation; and (2) providing more scrutiny on
cost-share levels and waivers. For example, preparedness
programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grants have
shown greater buy-in by state and local governments;
demonstrated better performance in delivering resources to
first responders; and ensured efficient and effective response
operations. These types of reforms will increase transparency
in the way that disaster declaration decisions are made and in
accurately measuring a state's capacity to respond to a
disaster.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Reform the National Flood Insurance Program. While
collections from policyholders should cover the costs
associated with flood-insurance activities, the NFIP owes a
debt of over $23 billion to the Treasury, on which it must also
pay debt service. Most of this debt accumulated during the
hurricane season of 2005. On average, premiums collections from
subsidized policies cover only 40 to 45 percent of the full
expected cost of the insurance.
The numbers are stark. NFIP currently has more than 5.6
million policy holders and $1.3 trillion in contingent taxpayer
liabilities for property coverage. With only $3.6 billion in
written premiums and $23 billion debts, prospects are dim under
current law that the program will ever reach solvency.
The Biggert-Waters Act included important structural
reforms to remove NFIP subsidies for new purchases of existing
properties with high-flood risk, second and vacation homes, and
for properties that realize severe repeated losses from flood
damage. However, these reforms are not enough to protect
taxpayers from NFIP's financial exposure. The House budget
includes proposals to further pare back existing NFIP
subsidies, meet our commitments to pay back taxpayers for past
loans, and level the playing field for private insurers to
enter the market, while sustaining the fund's ability to make
good on future claims.
Reduce energy subsidies for commercial interests. The
budget recommends spending reductions for rural green-energy
loan guarantees. These loan guarantees come with federal
mandates that channel private investments into financing the
administration's preferred interests at taxpayers' expense.
FUNCTION 500: EDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIAL SERVICES
----------
Function Summary
A well-educated workforce is one of the key drivers of
strong economic growth. In the face of global and technological
advances that have made the modern economy more complex and
dynamic, it is imperative that all Americans have the
opportunity to access a high-quality education. Yet, though
federal spending on the Department of Education and related
education programs has grown significantly over the past few
decades, academic achievement has not seen a commensurate
improvement.
Now more than ever, the nation's students must have the
opportunity to access the high-quality education and skills-
training needed to enable the workforce to compete in the
rapidly changing global economy. At the same time, Congress
must make every dollar count by eliminating wasteful,
duplicative, and ineffective programs. The Government
Accountability Office has identified many areas that are ripe
for reform. In the area of education, their reports have
identified 82 separate programs designed to improve teacher
quality across ten federal agencies, and dozens of overlapping
job-training programs.
Reforms in these areas are reflected in Function 500, which
covers federal spending primarily in the Departments of
Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services for programs
that directly provide--or assist states and localities in
providing--services to young people and adults. Activities
reflected here provide developmental services to low-income
children; help fund programs for disadvantaged and other
elementary- and secondary-school students; make grants and
loans to post-secondary students; and fund job-training and
employment services for people of all ages.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution provides $56.4 billion in budget authority
and $77.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. In that year,
discretionary spending is $95.1 billion in budget authority and
$94 billion in outlays; mandatory spending in 2014 is -$38.7
billion in budget authority and -$16.7 billion in outlays. Over
ten years, spending in this function totals $905.8 billion in
budget authority and $925.9 billion in outlays.
The negative mandatory numbers are due to the direct-
lending program, in which the Department of Education acts
effectively as a bank making student loans. However, for
reasons addressed later in this section, these projected future
savings are misleading because they fail to account for the
market risk of the loans.
Illustrative Policy Options
The committees of jurisdiction will make final policy
determinations, but options worthy of consideration include the
following.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Reform Job-Training Programs. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reports that over 12.0 million Americans are
unemployed. Yet, they also report 3.7 million job openings.
This gap is due in part to the failure of the nation's
workforce-development programs to successfully match workers'
skills with employers' needs. Federal job-training programs are
balkanized, difficult to access, and lacking in accountability.
In January 2011, the GAO issued a report that identified 47
federal employment and training programs that overlap with at
least one other program, providing similar services to similar
populations. Together, those GAO-identified programs spent $18
billion in fiscal year 2009, including stimulus dollars. Since
GAO issued that report, the Education and Workforce Committee
has conducted extensive work in this arena and added to the
list, identifying more than 50 duplicative and overlapping
programs.
This bureaucratic nightmare fails workers and employers
alike and wastes taxpayer dollars. Senator Coburn has presented
a report highlighting the high amount of waste, fraud, and
abuse that occurs in these programs. Even President Obama noted
in his 2012 State of the Union Address that the maze of
confusing training programs must be cut through. To that end,
all congressional committees with jurisdiction over job-
training programs should look to consolidate as many
administrative structures as possible to eliminate duplication
and maximize taxpayer funds by focusing them on the most
effective means of delivering job-training activities. The
Education and the Workforce Committee, for instance, recently
introduced legislation to that end.
This budget improves accountability by calling for the
consolidation of duplicative federal job-training programs into
more targeted career-scholarship programs. This budget will
also improve these programs' accountability by tracking the
type of training provided, the cost-per-trainee, employment
after training, and whether the trainee secures a job in his or
her preferred field. A streamlined approach with increased
oversight and accountability will not only provide
administrative savings, but improve access, choice, and
flexibility to enable workers and job seekers to respond
quickly and effectively to whatever specific career challenges
they face.
Moreover, this budget adopts a proposal from President
Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget to close chronically low-
performing Job Corps centers. Such a reform will allow those
funds to be better invested in centers with proven track
records.
Make the Pell Grant Program Sustainable. Pell Grants are
the perfect example of promises that cannot be kept. The
program is on an unsustainable path, a fact acknowledged by the
President's own fiscal year 2013 budget. The College Cost
Reduction and Access Act of 2007, the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008, the ``stimulus'' bill, and the Student
Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010 all made Pell Grants
more generous than the federal budget could afford. This, along
with a dramatic rise in the number of eligible students due to
the recession, has caused program costs to more than double
since 2008, from $16.1 billion in 2008 to an estimated $34.2
billion in fiscal year 2014. Moreover, the program is beginning
to increasingly rely on mandatory funding to solve its
discretionary shortfalls. For instance, the Department of
Education warned in fiscal year 2012 that without changes to
reduce program costs, Pell Grants would have an ending
shortfall of $20.4 billion. And based on current CBO estimates,
the program will again face a shortfall in fiscal year 2015.
Instead of making necessary, long-term reforms, previous
Congresses again resorted to short-term funding patches--a
temporary answer that will not prevent another severe funding
cliff for the program in the future. The President's past
budgets have failed to make the tough choices about the future
of Pell Grants. For instance, his fiscal year 2013 budget
increased the maximum Pell award, but only provided funding for
that level of award through the 2014-2015 academic year. These
decisions put the program at greater risk of ultimately being
unable to fulfill its promises to students.
Reforms are necessary to enable the program to continue
helping low-income students gain access to higher education.
The budget recommends the following:
Roll back certain recent expansions to the needs
analysis to ensure aid is targeted to the truly needy. The
Department of Education attributed 14 percent of program growth
between 2008 and 2011 to recent legislative expansions to the
needs-analysis formula. The biggest cost drivers come from
changes made in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of
2007, such as the expansions of the level at which a student
qualifies for an automatic zero Expected Family Contribution
and the income-protection allowance. These should be returned
to pre--CCRAA levels.
Eliminate administrative fees paid to
participating institutions. The government pays participating
schools $5 per grant to administer and distribute Pell awards.
Schools already benefit significantly from the Pell program
because the aid makes attendance at those schools more
affordable.
Consider a maximum-income cap. Currently there is
no fixed upper-income limit for a student to qualify for Pell.
Figures are simply plugged into a formula to calculate the
amount for which the student qualifies. The higher the income
level of the student and the student's family, the smaller
grant they receive.
Eliminate eligibility for less-than-half-time
students. Funding should be reserved for students with a larger
commitment to their education.
Consider reforms to Return of Title IV Funds
regulations. Simple changes to this policy, such as increasing
the amount of time a student must attend class in order to
withdraw without debt owed for back assistance, will increase
the likelihood of students completing their courses and lower
incentives for fraud.
Adopt a sustainable maximum-award level. The
Department of Education attributed 25 percent of recent program
growth to the $619 increase in the maximum award done in the
stimulus bill that took effect in the 2009--10 academic year.
To get program costs back to a sustainable level, the budget
recommends maintaining the maximum award for the 2012--2013
award year of $5,645 in each year of the budget window. This
award would be fully funded through discretionary spending.
Encourage Policies That Promote Innovation. Federal higher-
education policy should increasingly be focused not solely on
financial aid, but on policies that maximize innovation and
ensure a robust menu of institutional options from which
students and their families are able to choose. Such policies
should include reexamining the data made available to students
to make certain they are armed with information that will
assist them in making their postsecondary decisions.
Additionally, the federal government should act to remove
regulatory barriers in higher education that act to restrict
flexibility and innovative teaching, particularly as it relates
to non-traditional models such as online coursework.
Eliminate Ineffective and Duplicative Federal Education
Programs. The current structure for K-12 programs at the
Department of Education is fragmented and ineffective.
Moreover, many programs are duplicative or are highly
restricted, serving only a small number of students. Given the
budget constraints, Congress must focus resources on programs
that truly help students. The budget calls for reorganization
and streamlining of K-12 programs and anticipates major reforms
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was last
reauthorized as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. The
budget also recommends that the committees of jurisdiction
terminate and reduce programs that are failing to improve
student achievement and address the duplication among the 82
programs that are designed to improve teacher quality.
Encourage Private Funding for Cultural Agencies. Federal
subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting can no longer be justified. The activities and
content funded by these agencies go beyond the core mission of
the federal government, and they are generally enjoyed by
people of higher-income levels, making them a wealth transfer
from poorer to wealthier citizens. These agencies can raise
funds from private-sector patrons, which will also free them
from any risk of political interference.
Eliminate the Corporation for National and Community
Service. Programs administered out of this agency--which
created the oxymoron ``paid volunteer''--provide funding to
students and others who work in certain areas of public
service. Participation in these programs is not based on need.
The federal government already has aid programs focused on low-
income students, and paying volunteers is not a core federal
responsibility, especially in times of high deficits and debt.
Further, it is much more efficient to have such efforts operate
at the state and local level by the community that receives the
benefit of the service.
Eliminate Administrative Fees Paid to Schools in the
Campus-Based Student Aid Programs. Under current law,
participating higher-education institutions are allowed to use
5 percent of federal program funds for administrative purposes.
The budget recommends prohibiting these funds from being used
for administrative costs. Schools already benefit significantly
from participating in federal student-aid programs.
Promote State, Local, and Private Funding for Museums and
Libraries. The Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services
is an independent agency that makes grants to museums and
libraries. This is not a core federal responsibility. This
function can be funded at the state and local level and
augmented significantly by charitable contributions from the
private sector.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Repeal New Funding from the Student Aid and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2010. During the debate on SAFRA, the
Congressional Budget Office provided estimates showing that
projected future savings from a government takeover of all
federal student loans decreased dramatically when ``market
risk'' was taken into account. Since that time, the President's
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and the Pew--
Peterson Commission on Budget Reform have recommended the
incorporation of fair-value accounting for all federal loan and
loan-guarantee programs to enable a true assessment of their
cost to taxpayers. In 2012, the House passed H.R. 3581, the
Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, which would mandate
fair-value accounting. Unfortunately, SAFRA used the higher
non-adjusted savings projection to subsidize the new health-
care law and to increase spending on several education
programs. Although much of the funding allocations have already
been spent, Congress could cancel the future spending in the
following ways:
First, it could repeal the expansion of the
Income-Based Repayment program. SAFRA made the IBR plan more
generous for new borrowers of Direct Loans. This program,
created by the CCRAA and accelerated by the administration, is
still relatively new. Moreover, there are concerns that the
expansions could disproportionately benefit graduate and
professional students. Congress should ensure the program is
meeting its intended goals before it is expanded.
Second, Congress could repeal the new mandatory
College Access Challenge Grants. SAFRA dedicated $750 million
in mandatory spending to this discretionary program and created
a ``funding cliff' with resources abruptly terminating in 2014.
Third, it could make discretionary payments,
rather than mandatory payments, to non-profit servicers. SAFRA
established two separate funding categories for Direct Loan
servicing contracts, a mandatory stream for eligible non-profit
services and a discretionary stream for other servicers. Both
of these types of servicers should be funded with discretionary
funds.
Fourth, it could move funding for the Community
College/TAA grant program to the discretionary side of the
budget. SAFRA provides an additional $500 million in mandatory
funding per year for fiscal years 2011--14 for the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training
program--a competitive grant program administered by the
Department of Labor. This program should not be funded with
mandatory funds.
Accept the Fiscal Commission's Proposal to Eliminate In-
School Interest Subsidies for Undergraduate Students. The
federal government focuses aid decisions on family income prior
to a student's enrollment, and then provides a number of
repayment protections and, in some cases, loan forgiveness
after graduation. There is no evidence that in-school interest
subsidies are critical to individual matriculation.
Terminate the Duplicative Social Services Block Grant. The
Social Services Block Grant is an annual payment sent to States
without a matching requirement to help achieve a range of
social goals, including child care, health services, and
employment services. Most of these are also funded by other
federal programs. States are given wide discretion to determine
how to spend this money and are not required to demonstrate the
outcomes of this spending, so there is no evidence of its
effectiveness. The budget recommends eliminating this
duplicative spending.
FUNCTION 550: HEALTH
----------
Function Summary
The principal driver of spending in this function is
Medicaid, the federal-state low-income health program. It
represents more than 70 percent of the function total, and is
growing at a rate of 8 percent per year--far faster than the
growth of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office
projects federal spending on this program to be $265 billion in
fiscal year 2013. This is expected to more than double within
the next ten years, reaching $572 billion by fiscal year 2023.
But this represents only the federal share of Medicaid.
State spending on the program is expected to follow these same
trends. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services' December 2011 Actuarial Report on the Financial
Outlook on Medicaid, total state spending will rise from $159.2
billion in fiscal year 2011 to $340 billion in fiscal year
2020.
While these spending trends are clearly unsustainable,
Medicaid also has fostered a two-tiered hierarchy in the
health-care marketplace that stigmatizes Medicaid enrollees.
Its perverse funding structure is exacerbating budget pressures
at the state and federal level, while creating a mountain of
waste. With administrators looking to control costs and
providers refusing to participate in a system that severely
under-reimburses their services, Medicaid beneficiaries are
ultimately finding it increasingly difficult to obtain even the
most basic medical care. Absent reform, Medicaid will not be
able to deliver on its promise to provide a sturdy health-care
safety net for society's most vulnerable.
Medicaid's current structure gives states a perverse
incentive to expand the program and little incentive to save.
For every dollar that a state government spends on Medicaid,
the federal government pays an average of 57 cents. Expanding
Medicaid coverage during boom years is tempting and easy to
do--state governments pay less than half the cost. Yet to
restrain Medicaid's growth, states must rescind a dollar's
worth of coverage to save 43 cents.
The recently enacted health-care law adds even more
liabilities to an already unsustainable program. CBO estimates
the new law will increase federal Medicaid spending by $635
billion. This is due to the millions of new beneficiaries that
the law drives into the program. In fact, CBO estimates that in
2023, 12 million new enrollees will be added to the Medicaid
program as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
For all these reasons, this budget recommends a fundamental
reform of the Medicaid program. One potential approach is
described below.
In addition to Medicaid, this budget function includes
spending for the Affordable Care Act's exchange subsidies;
State Children's Health Insurance Program; health research and
training, including the National Institutes of Health and
substance-abuse prevention and treatment; and consumer and
occupational health and safety, including the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.
Discretionary spending in this function includes funding
for Project Bioshield, NIH, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, and the Food and Drug Administration.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $363.8 billion in budget authority
and $378.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014.
Discretionary spending for the year is $40.1 billion in budget
authority and $57.6 billion in outlays; mandatory spending is
$323.6 billion in budget authority and $321 billion in outlays.
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $3.98
trillion and $3.97 trillion, respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
The exact contours of a Medicaid reform--as well as other
policies flowing from the fiscal assumptions in this budget
resolution--will be determined by the committees of
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the need for fundamental Medicaid
reform and other measures to slow the growth of federal
spending are unquestioned, and one set of potential approaches
is described below.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
MANDATORY SPENDING
Provide State Flexibility on Medicaid. One way to secure
the Medicaid benefit is by converting the federal share of
Medicaid spending into an allotment tailored to meet each
state's needs, indexed for inflation and population growth.
Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all
approach that has tied the hands of state governments. States
would no longer be shackled by federally determined program
requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, each state would
have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program
that fit the needs of its unique population.
The budget resolution proposes to transform Medicaid from
an open-ended entitlement into a block-granted program like
SCHIP. These programs would be unified under the proposal and
grown together for population growth and inflation.
This reform also would improve the health-care safety net
for low-income Americans by giving states the ability to offer
their Medicaid populations more options and better access to
care. Medicaid recipients, like all other Americans, deserve to
choose their own doctors and make their own health-care
decisions, instead of having Washington make those decisions
for them.
There are numerous examples across the country where states
have used existing, but limited flexibility of Medicaid's
waiver program to introduce innovative reforms that produced
cost savings, quality improvements, and beneficiary
satisfaction. The state of Indiana implemented such reforms
through the Healthy Indiana Plan, a patient-centered system
that provided health coverage to uninsured residents who didn't
qualify for Medicaid. Enrollees in this program had access to
benefits such as physician services, prescription drugs, both
patient and outpatient hospital care, and disease management.
Unfortunately, the current administration denied Indiana's
request to continue operating their program under the Medicaid
waiver rules.
The Medicaid reforms proposed in the fiscal year 2014
budget take the opposite approach and instead provide all
states with the necessary flexibility to pursue reforms similar
to the Indiana plan.
Based on this kind of reform, this budget assumes $810
billion in savings over ten years, easing the fiscal burdens
imposed on state budgets and contributing to the long-term
stabilization of the federal government's fiscal path.
Repeal the Medicaid Expansions in the New Health-Care Law.
The recently enacted health-care law calls for major expansions
in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. These expansions
will have a significant impact on the federal share of the
Medicaid program, and will dramatically increase outlays.
In the face of enormous stress on federal and state budgets
and declining quality of care for Medicaid, the new health-care
law would increase the eligible population for the program by
one-third. For fiscal years 2014 through 2023, CBO projects the
new law will increase federal spending by $635 billion.
This future fiscal burden will have serious budgetary
consequences for both federal and state governments. While the
health law requires the federal government to finance 100
percent of the Medicaid costs associated with covering new
enrollees, this provision begins to phase out in fiscal year
2016. At that time, state governments will be required to
assume a share of this cost. This share increases from fiscal
year 2016 through 2020, when states will be required to finance
10 percent of the health law's expansion of Medicaid.
Not only does this expansion magnify the challenges to both
state and federal budgets, it also binds the hands of local
governments in developing solutions that meet the unique needs
of their citizens. The health-care law would exacerbate the
already crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates that
have resulted in below-market reimbursements, poor health-care
outcomes, and restrictive services. The budget calls for
repealing the Medicaid expansions contained in the health-care
law and removing the law's burdensome programmatic mandates on
state governments. Adopting this option would save $635.8
billion over ten years.
Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health-
Care Law. According to CBO estimates, the health law proposes
to spend over $1.2 trillion over the next ten years providing
eligible individuals with subsidies to purchase government-
approved health insurance. These subsidies can only be used to
purchase plans that meet standards determined by the new
health-care law. In addition to this enormous market
distortion, the law also stipulates a complex maze of
eligibility and income tests to determine how much of a subsidy
qualifying individuals may receive.
The new law couples these subsidies with a mandate for
individuals to purchase health insurance and bureaucratic
controls on the types of insurance that may legally be offered.
Taken together, these provisions will undermine the private
insurance market, which serves as the backbone of the current
U.S. health-care system. Exchange subsidies will undermine the
competitive forces of the marketplace. Government mandates will
drive out all but the largest insurance companies. Punitive tax
penalties will force individuals to purchase coverage whether
they choose to or not. Further, this budget does not condone
any policy that would require entities or individuals to
finance activities make health decisions that violate their
religious beliefs. This budget repeals the President's onerous
health-care law for this and many other reasons.
Left in place, the health law will create pressures that
will eventually lead to a single-payer system in which the
federal government determines how much health care Americans
need and what kind of care they can receive. This budget
recommends repealing the architecture of this new law, which
puts heath-care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats, and
instead allowing Congress to pursue patient-centered health-
care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by
empowering consumers.
For Function 550, repeal of the insurance subsidies and
other exchange-related spending would save roughly $1.1
trillion over ten years. To be clear, this budget repeals all
federal spending related to the health law's exchange subsidies
and related spending. CBO's $1.2 trillion estimate for the
spending associated with exchange subsidies combines a mix of
both outlays and revenues. Function 550 reflects only the
savings that would result from repealing the federal-outlay
portion of this spending. The remaining $100 billion in savings
is associated with the revenues spent under the new law for
premium credits. This budget assumes full repeal of all of the
new health-care law's tax increases as part of comprehensive
tax reform.
Other Related Savings: Interactions from repealing other
associated provisions in the new health-care law save roughly
$23 billion over 10 years.
FUNCTION 570: MEDICARE
----------
Function Summary
With the creation of Medicare in 1965, the United States
made a commitment to help fund the medical care of elderly
Americans without exhausting their life savings or the assets
and incomes of their working children and younger relatives. In
urging the creation of Medicare, President Kennedy said that
such a program was chiefly needed to protect not the poor, but
people who had worked for years and suddenly found all their
savings gone because of a costly health problem.
But spending for Medicare has grown quickly in recent
decades--in part because of rising enrollment and in part
because of rising costs per enrollee--and has reached
unsustainable rates. Between 1970 and 2012, gross federal
spending for Medicare rose from 0.7 percent of GDP to 3.7
percent. Under the alternative fiscal scenario in CBO's latest
The Long-Term Budget Outlook, mandatory spending on Medicare is
projected to exceed 7 percent of GDP by 2040 and reach 13
percent of GDP by 2085. CBO's March baseline projects that
Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be bankrupt by
2023.
Medicare's imbalance threatens beneficiaries' access to
quality, affordable care. The program's fundamentally flawed
structure is driving up health-care costs, which are, in turn,
threatening to bankrupt the system--and ultimately the nation.
Without reform, the program will end up causing exactly what it
was created to avoid: millions of America's seniors without
adequate health security and a younger working generation
saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that
cannot be sustained.
Letting government break its promises to current seniors
and to future generations is unacceptable. In addition, placing
Medicare on a sustainable path is an indispensable part of
restoring the federal government's fiscal balance. The reforms
outlined in this budget protect and preserve Medicare for those
in or near retirement, while saving and strengthening the
program so future generations can count on it when they retire.
The Medicare program's spending appears in Function 570 of
the budget resolution. The function reflects the Medicare Part
A Hospital Insurance Program, Part B Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program, Part C Medicare Advantage Program, and Part
D Prescription Drug Benefit, as well as premiums paid by
qualified aged and disabled beneficiaries.
The various parts of the program are financed in different
ways. Part A benefits are financed primarily by a payroll tax
(currently 2.9 percent of taxable earnings), the revenues from
which are credited to the HI Trust Fund. For Part B, premiums
paid by beneficiaries cover about one-quarter of outlays, and
the Treasury General Fund covers the rest. (Payments to private
insurance plans under Part C are financed by a blend of funds
from Parts A and B.) Enrollees' premiums under Part D are set
to cover about one-quarter of the cost of the basic
prescription drug benefit, though many low-income enrollees
receive larger subsidies; general funds cover most of the
remaining cost.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $515.9 billion in budget authority
and $515.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014.
Discretionary spending is $6.7 billion in budget authority and
$6.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Mandatory spending
in 2014 is $509.3 billion in budget authority and $509.1
billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority
and outlays are $6.7 trillion and $6.7 trillion respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
The Medicare program attempts to do two things to make sure
that all seniors have secure, affordable health coverage.
First, the program pools risk among a specific population of
Americans, ensuring that seniors enjoy secure access to
coverage. The policies supported by this budget strengthen and
enhance this aspect of Medicare so seniors will have more
health-care choices within the same stabilized risk pool.
Second, Medicare subsidizes coverage for seniors to ensure
that coverage is affordable. Affordability is a critical goal,
but the subsidy structure of Medicare is fundamentally broken
and drives costs in the wrong direction. The open-ended, blank-
check nature of the Medicare subsidy fuels health-care
inflation, threatens the solvency of the program, and creates
inexcusable levels of waste in the system.
While the committees of jurisdiction will make the final
determinations on specific Medicare reforms, the options
described below offer one clear and reliable path toward
solvency.
PREMIUM SUPPORT
In the Medicare system, the federal government--not the
patient--is the customer; and the government has been a clumsy,
ineffective steward of value. Controlling costs in an open-
ended fee-for-service system has proved impossible to do
without limiting access or sacrificing quality. Over the
program's entire history, in a vain attempt to get control of
the waste in the system, Washington has made across-the-board
payment reductions to providers without regard to quality or
patient satisfaction. It has not worked. Costs have continued
to grow, seniors continue to lose access to quality care, and
the program remains on a path to bankruptcy. Absent reform,
Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of current seniors
and future generations.
Reform aimed at empowering individuals--with a strengthened
safety net for the poor and the sick--will not only ensure the
fiscal sustainability of this program, the federal budget, and
the U.S. economy, but also guarantee that Medicare can fulfill
the promise of health security for America's seniors.
The Medicare reform envisioned in this budget resolution
begins with a commitment to keep the promises made to those who
now are in or near retirement. Consequently, for those who
enter the program before 2024, the Medicare program and its
benefits will remain as they are, without change.
For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known
as ``premium support.''
Starting in 2024, seniors (those who first become eligible
by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2024) would be given a
choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional
fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare
Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment
either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by
the senior, depending on the plan's cost.
The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a
list of guaranteed-coverage options, a health plan that best
suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program. A
Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare,
directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to
subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner
similar to that of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. The
Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the
sick would receive higher payments if their conditions
worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional
assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier
seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of
their premiums. Also starting in 2024, the age of eligibility
for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with
Social Security's retirement age.
This approach to strengthening the Medicare program--which
is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans--would
ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the
future. It would set up a carefully monitored exchange for
Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the
Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all
Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that
Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive
coverage.
While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare
fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or
becoming eligible before 2024, all seniors would have the
choice to opt-in to the new Medicare program once it began in
2024. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to
choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health
security throughout their retirement years. It would also
expand that freedom to non-retirees by giving certain employers
the option to offer their employees a free-choice option,
smoothing the transition from their working years to when
seniors become Medicare-eligible. This would enable workers to
devote their employer's health-coverage contribution to the
purchase a health-insurance plan that works best for them.
This reform also ensures affordability by fixing the
currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition
work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing
health-care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their
health-care dollars are spent will force providers to compete
against each other on price and quality.
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
A Long-Term ``Doc Fix.'' In recent years, Medicare's
physician reimbursement formula--the ``sustained growth
rate''--has threatened steep reductions in payments, leaving
doctors uncertain about their incomes and, in some cases,
reluctant to take on additional Medicare patients. Congress has
patched over the problem numerous times with ad hoc increases
in reimbursements--a practice known as the ``doc fix.'' These
measures have become increasingly expensive to taxpayers
without stabilizing the program. This budget accommodates
legislation that fixes the Medicare physician-payment formula
for the next ten years so that Medicare beneficiaries continue
to have access to health care. It provides for a reimbursement
system that fairly compensates physicians who treat Medicare
beneficiaries while providing incentives to improve quality and
efficiency. The reimbursement reform process should also
protect seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans from
premium increases, benefit reductions and loss of coverage
options that would result from certain assumptions made by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid with respect to the SGR.
Ending the Raid on the Medicare Trust Fund. Supporters of
the 2010 government takeover of health care insisted the law
would both shore up the Medicare Trust Fund and pay for a new
health-care entitlement program. In testimony before the
Committee, Medicare's chief actuary stated the truism that the
same dollar could not be used twice. This budget calls for
directing any potential Medicare savings in current law toward
shoring up Medicare, not paying for new entitlements. The
budget also urges repeal of the health-care law's new rationing
board (the Independent Payment Advisory Board), in addition to
stabilizing plan choices for current seniors.
Medical-Liability-Insurance Reform. This budget also
advances common-sense curbs on abusive and frivolous lawsuits.
Medical lawsuits and excessive verdicts increase health-care
costs and result in reduced access to care. When mistakes
happen, patients have a right to fair representation and fair
compensation. But the current tort-litigation system too often
serves the interests of lawyers while driving up costs. The
budget supports several changes to laws governing medical
liability, including limits on noneconomic and punitive
damages.
Means-Testing Premiums for High-Income Seniors. This budget
also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test
premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors,
similar to the President's proposal in his fiscal year 2013
budget.
FUNCTION 600: INCOME SECURITY
----------
Function Summary
The welfare reforms of the late 1990s are a success story
of modern domestic policy, but they did not go as far as many
think. Reformers were not able to extend their work beyond cash
welfare to other means-tested programs. Notably, programs that
subsidize food and housing for low-income Americans remain
dysfunctional, and their explosive growth is threatening the
overall strength of the safety net. If the government continues
running trillion-dollar deficits and experiences a debt crisis,
the poor and vulnerable will undoubtedly be the hardest hit, as
the federal government's only recourse will be severe, across-
the-board cuts.
Most of the federal government's income-support programs
are included in Function 600, Income Security. These include
general retirement and disability insurance (excluding Social
Security)--mainly through the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation--and benefits to railroad retirees. Other
components are federal-employee-retirement and disability
benefits (including military retirees); unemployment
compensation; low-income housing assistance, including Section
8 housing; food and nutrition assistance, including food stamps
and school-lunch subsidies; and other income security programs.
This last category includes: Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families, the Government's principal welfare program;
Supplemental Security Income; spending for the refundable
portion of the Earned Income Credit; and the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program. Agencies administering these
programs include the Departments of Agriculture, Health and
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Social
Security Administration (for SSI), and the Office of Personnel
Management (for federal-retirement benefits).
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $509.4 billion in budget authority
and $508.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014.
Discretionary spending is $61.1 billion in budget authority and
$64 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Mandatory spending
in 2014 is $448.4 billion in budget authority and $444 billion
in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority and
outlays are $4.97 trillion and $4.94 trillion, respectively.
Although the Committee's recommendation is a disciplined
budget that will require committees of jurisdiction and
agencies to set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does
not take the arbitrary approach that would result in the event
of a fiscal crisis.
Illustrative Policy Options
Reforming the federal government's income-security programs
can both strengthen the safety net and protect taxpayers. Among
reforms that could be considered by the committees of
jurisdiction are the following.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Reform Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Outreach Funding. This budget assumes that outreach funding for
the SNAP program is reduced, and the reduction is shifted
towards programs that facilitate upward mobility, such as
properly reformed job-training programs.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Block-Grant the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Spending on SNAP--formerly known as the Food Stamp Program--has
increased dramatically over the past three years. SNAP spending
grew from $20.6 billion in 2002 to nearly $40 billion in 2008,
and is projected to be over $80 billion in 2013. Although the
increase between 2008 and 2013 is partially due to the
recession, SNAP spending is forecast to be permanently higher
than previous estimates even after employment has recovered. A
variety of factors are driving this growth, but one major
reason is that though the States have the responsibility of
administering the program, they have little incentive to ensure
it is well run.
The budget resolution envisions converting SNAP into an
allotment tailored for each state's low-income population,
indexed for inflation and eligibility. This option would make
no changes to SNAP until 2019--after employment has recovered--
providing states with time to structure their own programs. It
would also envision improving work incentives by requiring a
certain amount of people to engage in work activity, such as
job search, community-service activities and education and job
training. This proposal is estimated to save $125 billion over
ten years.
Eliminate Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility. Broad-based
categorical eligibility allows households to become eligible
for SNAP by receiving a minimal Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families fund benefit or service. Typically, an individual is
made eligible by receiving a TANF brochure or being referred to
a social services ``800'' telephone number. This allows
individuals to qualify for SNAP benefits under less restrictive
criteria. For example, 40 states currently have no asset test
for receiving SNAP benefits.
Eliminate Abuse of LIHEAP: The Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program provides low-income families with help to
pay heating bills. However, many states are providing families
with $1.00 in LIHEAP benefits in order to increase SNAP
benefits (see ``Categorical Eligibility'' above). This proposal
would eliminate that abuse.
Reinstitute Welfare Work Requirements: The Obama
administration, in contravention of current law, has claimed
authority to waive the work requirements of the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families program. This budget rescinds any
authority the Obama administration thinks it has to provide for
waivers of the work requirement of the TANF program. It assumes
that President Clinton and the Republican majority at the time
were correct in requiring robust work requirements for the TANF
program--which led to the largest sustained reduction in child
poverty since the onset of the ``Great Society.'' This would
save $61 million over ten years.
Reform Civil-Service Pensions. In keeping with a
recommendation from the National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility, this option calls for federal employees--
including Members of Congress and staff--to make greater
contributions toward their own retirement. It would also reform
the ability for individuals to receive a ``special retirement
supplement,'' which pays federal employees the equivalent of
their Social Security benefit at an earlier age. As the Office
of Personnel Management states on its website, this benefit is
``unique'' to the Federal Employee Retirement System. This
would achieve significant budgetary savings and also help
facilitate a transition to a defined-contribution system for
new federal employees that would give them more control over
their own retirement security. From a fiscal-responsibility
standpoint, this option would replace a system that is creating
unfunded future liabilities for taxpayers with a fully funded
system: it could save an estimated $132 billion over ten years.
Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Currently,
the PBGC faces a $26 billion unfunded liability. Although this
budget does not assume the President's proposal from 2012, it
recognizes the need to reform the PBGC to ensure that a future
taxpayer-funded bailout does not occur. Potential savings could
total an estimated $950 million over ten years.
Unemployment Insurance. This budget resolution assumes that
unemployment-benefit expansions and extended benefits expire as
scheduled under current law and does not assume another
extension of emergency unemployment-insurance benefits. The
previous expansions have increased the potential maximum
duration of benefits to 79 weeks.
Reform Supplemental Security Income. Welfare programs
typically pay benefits on a sliding scale. However, SSI is
different, paying an average of $600 for each and every child
in a household who receives benefits. This reform would create
a sliding scale for children on SSI. Advocates for the disabled
have expressed support in the past for creating a sliding scale
for children on SSI. For example, Jonathan Stein--the lead
advocate attorney in the landmark 1990 Supreme Court Case
expanding SSI eligibility for children and witness for the
Democrats at an October 27, 2011 Ways and Means Subcommittee
hearing on SSI--in 1995 said the following about this proposal:
``[W]e have a long list of reforms that we do not have time to
get into, but we would say for very large families there should
be some sort of family cap or graduated sliding scale of
benefits.'' Additionally, Congress should review mental-health
categories in the children's SSI program, which have been the
fastest-growing categories of eligibility. These reforms could
save up to $5 billion over ten years.
Reform Means-Tested Entitlements. Congress should act to
reform means-tested entitlements. These programs have grown
rapidly over the past ten years, and Congress should reform
these programs and begin devolving them to the states. This
would build upon the historic progress of bipartisan welfare
reform in the late 1990s. These reforms transformed cash
welfare by encouraging work, limiting the duration of benefits,
and giving states more control over how money was being spent.
The TANF reforms of the old Aid for Families with Dependent
Children cut welfare caseloads in half as poverty rates
declined.
FUNCTION 650: SOCIAL SECURITY
----------
Function Summary
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
This category consists of the Social Security Program, or
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. It is the largest
budget function in terms of outlays and provides funds for the
government's largest entitlement program. Under provisions of
the Congressional Budget Act and the Budget Enforcement Act,
Social Security trust funds are considered to be off budget.
But a small portion of spending within Function 650--including
general-fund transfers of taxes paid on Social Security
benefits--is on budget. Therefore, though the discussion below
describes both the on-budget and off-budget components, the
budget resolution itself contains only the on-budget portion.
Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in
future benefits. This budget strengthens the program by
establishing a requirement that policymakers come to the table
and enact common-sense reforms to keep the program solvent for
current beneficiaries and make it stronger for future
generations.
The President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform put forward a proposal in December of 2010 to make
Social Security sustainably solvent over the 75-year actuarial
period that is used to measure the soundness of the program--
demonstrating that there is a bipartisan way forward.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
Social Security contains both on-budget and off-budget
spending--the latter consisting of benefit payments for the
OASDI program. The budget resolution reflects only the on-
budget spending. In that category, the resolution calls for
$27.5 billion in budget authority and $27.6 billion in outlays
in fiscal year 2014. Over ten years, the on-budget totals are
$421.3 billion in budget authority and $421.6 billion in
outlays.
In the off-budget category, the resolution calls for $836.2
billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2014 and $832.2
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2014. Over ten years, the
off-budget totals are $10.85 trillion in budget authority and
$10.79 trillion in outlays.
Illustrative Policy Options
FACING SOCIAL SECURITY'S FISCAL PROBLEM
An all-too-common reaction to the fiscal problem in Social
Security has been denial that a problem exists. It is claimed
that the Social Security Trust Fund will remain solvent for at
least a decade, at which point the government could
theoretically cover any shortfall by raising taxes. Others
downplay the necessity for change, contending that sustained
economic growth could take care of the problem all by itself.
Neither is correct. First, any value in the balances in the
Social Security Trust Fund is derived from dubious government
accounting. The trust fund is not a real savings account. From
1983 to 2010, it collected more Social Security taxes than it
paid out in Social Security benefits. But the government
borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other
government programs unrelated to Social Security. The Trust
Fund holds Treasury securities, but the ability to redeem these
securities is completely dependent on the Treasury's ability to
raise money through taxes or borrowing.
Social Security is currently paying out more in benefits
than it collected in taxes--in other words, running cash
deficits--a trend that will worsen as the baby boomers continue
to retire. To pay full benefits, the government must pay back
the money it owes Social Security. In testimony before the
House Budget Committee, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf stated
that:
Well, again, Congressman, on a unified budget basis,
taking account of just the tax revenues, the dedicated
tax revenues, and the benefits, it is contributing [to]
the deficit now. If one instead looks at just the
balance in the Social Security Trust Fund, that balance
is, the annual balance is positive now, but will be
negative within about a half dozen years.
Those who wish to solve this problem by raising taxes
ignore the profound economic damage that such large tax
increases would entail. Just lifting the cap on income subject
to Social Security taxes, as some have proposed, would, when
combined with the Obama administration's other preferred tax
policies, lift the top marginal tax rate above 50 percent. Most
economists agree that raising marginal tax rates that high
would create a significant drag on economic growth, job
creation, productivity, and wages.
Social Security's fragile condition poses a serious problem
that threatens to break the broader compact in which workers
support the generation preceding them, and earn the support of
those who follow.
There is a bipartisan path forward on Social Security--one
that requires all parties first to acknowledge the fiscal
realities of this critical program. The President's Fiscal
Commission made a positive first step by advancing solutions to
ensure the solvency of Social Security. They suggested a more
progressive benefit structure, with benefits for higher-income
workers growing more slowly than those of workers with lower
incomes who are more vulnerable to economic shocks in
retirement. The Commission also recommended reforms that take
account of increases in longevity, to arrest the demographic
problems that are undermining Social Security's finances.
In addition, there is bipartisan consensus that Social
Security reform should provide more help to those who fall
below the poverty line after retirement. There is no security
in a program that is blind to the needs of the nation's most
vulnerable citizens--lower-income seniors should receive more
targeted assistance than those who have had ample opportunity
to save for retirement.
While certain details of the Commission's Social Security
proposals, particularly on the tax side, are of debatable
merit, the Commission undoubtedly made positive steps forward
on bipartisan solutions to strengthen Social Security. This
budget seeks to build on the Commission's important work,
calling on action to solve this pressing problem by requiring
the President to put forward specific ideas on fixing Social
Security. The budget also puts the onus on Congress to offer
legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical
program. To be clear, nothing in this budget calls for the
privatization of Social Security.
STARTING THE PROCESS
This budget calls for setting in motion the process of
reforming Social Security by altering a current-law trigger
that, in the event that the Social Security program is not
sustainable, requires the President, in conjunction with the
Social Security Board of Trustees, to submit a plan for
restoring balance to the fund. This provision would then
require congressional leaders to put forward their best ideas
as well. Although the Committee on Ways and Means would make
the final determination, this provision would require that:
If in any year the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, in its annual
Trustees' Report, determines that the 75-year actuarial balance
of the Social Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the
annual balance of the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th
year is in deficit, the Board of Trustees should, no later than
the 30th of September of the same calendar year, submit to the
President recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to
achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive
annual balance in the 75th year.
No later than the 1st of December of the same
calendar year in which the Board of Trustees submits its
recommendations, the President shall promptly submit
implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress including
recommendations necessary to achieve a positive 75-year
actuarial balance and a positive annual balance in the 75th
year.
Within 60 days of the President's submitting
legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which the
legislation has been referred shall report the bill, which
shall be considered by the full House or Senate under expedited
procedures.
Again, the aim of this option is to force recognition of
the need to save Social Security. This procedure offers a first
step in that direction.
FUNCTION 700: VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES
----------
Function Summary
Function 700 includes funding for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, which provides benefits to veterans who meet
various eligibility rules. Benefit programs include veterans'
medical care, disability compensation and pensions, education
and rehabilitation benefits, and housing programs. Function 700
also includes other government agencies and programs that serve
veterans, such as the Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the American Battle Monuments
Commission.
The past two decades have seen extraordinary growth in
funding for benefits and services for the nation's 22 million
veterans. Over the past decade, veterans discretionary spending
(mostly health care) has increased 88 percent, while mandatory
costs have increased 144 percent, mostly attributable to
increasing disability compensation and the expansion of
benefits.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $145.7 billion in budget authority
and $145.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014.
Discretionary spending is $63.3 billion in budget authority and
$63.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. This in an
increase of 3.1 percent from last year's discretionary level.
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $82.4 billion in budget authority
and $82.3 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $1.7 trillion and $1.7 trillion,
respectively.
This resolution also authorizes up to $55.483 billion for
fiscal year 2015 in advance appropriations for medical care,
consistent with the Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform
Transparency Act of 2009. Since the President has yet to submit
a budget request this year, the VA's request for veterans-
medical-care advance appropriations for fiscal year 2015 is
unavailable as of the writing of this concurrent resolution.
The amount authorized in this resolution reflects the amount
requested in the administration's fiscal year 2013 request for
fiscal year 2015 and is the most up-to-date estimate on
veterans' health-care needs requested by the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
This budget fully funds the nation's commitment to the
services and benefits earned by veterans through their selfless
military service. Veterans are, and will remain, the highest
priority within this budget.
While the Committee does not assume any savings in Function
700, it notes the bipartisan support for certain mandatory
savings proposals. These proposals include:
COLA Round-Down. This savings proposal would extend current
law and calls for rounding down to the nearest dollar the
annual cost of living adjustment for veterans' disability
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation. This
option was included in a bipartisan letter from the leadership
of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees to the
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in 2011. This minor
adjustment to compensation payments would have little impact on
veterans and was also included in the President's fiscal year
2013 budget request.
Slow the Growth in VA Contributions Toward Increasing
Tuition Rates. Veteran-education benefits became significantly
more generous following the 2008 passage of the Post-9/11 G.I.
Bill. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill covers veterans' tuition, fees,
and textbook costs, in addition to providing a monthly tax-free
living stipend. The rapidly increasing average cost of tuition
nationwide--about 6 percent per year--is causing unexpected and
considerable increases in education-benefit spending.
Furthermore, there is strong evidence that uncapped federal
assistance to students for higher education--both for veterans
and for other populations--is enabling the rapid rise of
tuition costs. As higher-education analyst Art Hauptman has
written, ``It is difficult to believe that colleges and
universities could have increased their charges so rapidly over
time without the ready availability of students' ability to
borrow.''
Both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees
proposed to the JSCDR that capping the annual increase in
tuition support at 3 percent would lead to substantial savings
and, by no longer enabling rapidly rising tuition, would not
adversely impact veterans.
FUNCTION 750: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
----------
Function Summary
The Administration of Justice function consists of federal
law-enforcement programs, litigation and judicial activities,
correctional operations, and state- and local-justice
assistance. Activities funded within this function include: the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement
Administration; border and transportation security; the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the United States
Attorneys; legal divisions within the Department of Justice;
the Legal Services Corporation; the Federal Judiciary; and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. This function also includes several
components of the Department of Homeland Security.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $51.9 billion in budget authority
and $53.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Discretionary
spending is $50.4 billion in budget authority and $51.8 billion
in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Mandatory spending in 2014 is
$1.6 billion in budget authority and $1.6 billion in outlays.
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $607.4
billion and $608.1 billion, respectively.
According to the Government Accountability Office, since
fiscal year 2005, over $30 billion has been disbursed to more
than 200 DOJ programs authorized through three sources:
Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office of Justice
Programs, and the Office on Violence Against Women. The GAO has
determined that many of these grants--several of which have
been used to fund recreational activities, fashion shows, pool
parties, and even doughnut-eating contests--could be viewed as
wasteful, overlapping, and duplicative.
With the risk of terrorism as well as a tidal wave of debt,
federal taxpayer money for the Department of Justice should be
focused on administering justice, arresting and prosecuting
terrorists, investigating crimes, and seeking punishment for
those guilty of unlawful behavior. It is the responsibility of
the states and communities to determine the best course of
action in deterring crime. The budget focuses on funding core
government responsibilities and reducing duplication, excess,
and unnecessary spending.
Illustrative Policy Options
As elsewhere, the committees of jurisdiction will make
final policy determinations. The proposals below indicate
policy options that might be considered.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Consolidate Justice Grants. In 2010, DOJ awarded nearly
$3.9 billion in grants, including $4.0 billion provided in the
2009 stimulus bill. The Congressional Research Service and GAO
identified overlap and duplication within many of these grant
programs. CRS suggested ``possible policy options could include
altering the current grant programs to target funding for
specific activities in each grant program or consolidating the
different grant programs into one large program.'' In addition,
these grant programs address law-enforcement issues that are
primarily state and local responsibilities. This option
streamlines grants into three categories--first responder, law
enforcement, and victims--while eliminating waste,
inefficiency, and bureaucracy.
Eliminate Unnecessary Headquarters Funding for DHS, DOJ,
and Judiciary. Underperforming IT projects, representational
fees for receptions, and new construction funds should be
reduced in agency headquarters' management and operations
programs. The budget recommends additional scrutiny of cost
overruns of DHS's St. Elizabeths project, the largest federal
building project in DC since the Pentagon.
FUNCTION 800: GENERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Function Summary
General government consists of the activities of the
legislative branch; the Executive Office of the President;
general tax administration and fiscal operations of the
Department of the Treasury (including the Internal Revenue
Service); the Office of Personnel Management, and the real-
property and personnel costs of the General Services
Administration; general-purpose fiscal assistance to states,
localities, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories; and
other general government activities.
Several programs in general government have seen steady
growth since 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
increased the General Services Administration's budget by $5.8
billion, for example.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $23.2 billion in budget authority
and $24.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014. Of that
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014 totals $16.9
billion in budget authority and $17.4 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending in 2014 is $6.4 billion in budget authority
and $6.8 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $252.3 billion and $247.4 billion,
respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
The resolution aims to eliminate identified waste across
all federal-government branches and agencies. federal pay,
benefits, and mismanagement of properties are just a few areas
where savings should be achieved. Although the committees of
jurisdiction will determine the actual policies in pursuit of
these goals, the options below offer several potential
approaches.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Adopt ``YouCut'' Proposals. The budget also incorporates
several of the House Republican ``YouCut'' proposals introduced
during the 111th and 112th Congresses. One example in Function
800 is the elimination of the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund, which saves $300 million over ten years.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Freeze New Construction. In fiscal year 2010, the
government owned 77,700 properties which were either
underutilized or not utilized at all--at a cost of $1.7
billion. This budget calls for a freeze on new construction for
a one-year period.
Decrease Costs of the Government Printing Office by
Increasing the Use of Electronic Copies. The GPO prints
thousands upon thousands of pages of government documents each
year. However, the online presence of this material has become
ubiquitous. This resolution supports policy that guides the GPO
to print materials on a more selective basis, allowing users to
rely more heavily on increased electronic access to materials.
Terminate the Election Assistance Commission. This
independent agency was created in 2002 as part of the Help
America Vote Act to provide grants to states to modernize
voting equipment. Its mission has been fulfilled. Even the
National Association of Secretaries of State has passed
resolutions stating that the EAC has served its purpose and
funding is no longer necessary. The EAC should be eliminated
and any valuable, residual functions transferred to the Federal
Election Commission.
Accompany Pro-Growth Tax Reform with Responsible Reductions
to the Internal Revenue Service. Changes in the tax code are
occurring at a rate of approximately one a day, and the
Internal Revenue Code now contains approximately 4 million
words. Each year, taxpayers and businesses spend an
unbelievable 6 billion hours complying with filing
requirements. This resolution calls for simplifying the
burdensome tax code, naturally reducing the agency's size by
promoting policies that lead to less reliance on the IRS.
FUNCTION 900: NET INTEREST
----------
Function Summary
An adverse effect of chronic budget deficits is the high
interest cost it produces. Interest payments result in no
government services or benefits; they are simply excess costs
resulting from a history of spending beyond the government's
means. These costs are reflected in Function 900, which
presents the interest paid for the federal government's
borrowing less the interest received by the federal government
from trust-fund investments and loans to the public. It is a
mandatory payment, with no discretionary components.
For the past four years, the federal government has run
deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and despite some
discretionary-spending reductions since the beginning of the
112th Congress, the federal budget is on track for another year
to run an abnormally high deficit. Because much of the federal
government's spending is so deeply entrenched, reducing the
associated interest costs will require sustained spending
restraint. This budget resolution does so--and it reduces net
interest by $869 billion over ten years compared with the CBO
baseline.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $242 billion in mandatory budget
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2014. The ten-year totals
for budget authority and outlays are $4.5 trillion.
On-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are $341
billion in fiscal year 2014 and $5.6 trillion over ten years.
The on-budget figures are larger than the function totals
because the former are offset by off-budget interest payments
to the Social Security Trust Fund, which are reflected as
negative numbers.
Off-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are
-$98.7 billion in fiscal year 2014, and -$1.0 trillion over ten
years.
FUNCTION 920: ALLOWANCES
----------
Function Summary
Function 920 is a category called ``allowances'' that
represents a place-holder for any budgetary impacts that the
Congressional Budget Office has yet to assign to a specific
budget function. CBO typically reassigns the budgetary effects
of any legislation enacted within Function 920 once a new
baseline update is released.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
In August 2011, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of
2011 (P.L. 112-25) that provided for significant spending
reductions enforced by statutory spending caps and an automatic
enforcement procedure. The BCA did not specify a distribution
of spending reductions in specific budget functions other than
for defense (Function 050) and Medicare (Function 570), even
though the law does require reductions in non-defense and non-
Medicare areas of the budget. At the time that the February
2013 baseline was released, CBO did not provide function-level
information on what non-defense and non-Medicare reductions are
under the terms of the BCA. CBO has, instead, assigned the non-
defense and non-Medicare reductions required by the BCA to
Function 920.
This budget resolution makes no changes in this function,
leaving it instead at the CBO baseline levels.
The CBO baseline for Function 920 includes a total of
$771.1 billion and $712.3 billion in reductions for budget
authority and outlays, respectively, to reflect the impact of
the BCA on non-defense and non-Medicare spending. The following
four components are included in the baseline:
1. A $354 billion and $315 billion reduction in non-defense
budget authority and outlays, respectively, needed to comply
with the discretionary spending caps set by the BCA in section
101.
2. An additional $348 billion and $335 billion reduction in
total non-defense budget authority and outlays, respectively,
needed to comply with the automatic-sequester provision and
revised discretionary-spending caps under Section 302 of the
BCA.
3. A $29 billion and $21 billion reduction in discretionary
budget authority and outlays, respectively, for disaster-
relief-designated spending not subject to the BCA spending
caps. Under CBO's normal scoring conventions, the discretionary
baseline reflects the most recently enacted discretionary level
adjusted for inflation in the out years. Section 251(b)(2)(D)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as
amended by the BCA, however, limits upward adjustments in
spending limits for disaster-relief-designated spending to the
ten-year rolling average of previous disaster-relief-designated
spending (excluding the highest and lowest years in calculating
that average). CBO has estimated that a discretionary baseline
carrying an inflated level of disaster spending, as provided
for in the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (P.L.
112-175), would result in disaster-relief spending levels
greater than the rolling-average limit set forth in the BCA.
Therefore, CBO has added a downward adjustment in Function 920
to reduce disaster relief-designated spending in its baseline
to comply with the BCA limit.
4. A $40 billion reduction in both budget authority and
outlays to non-Medicare and non-defense mandatory programs
necessary to comply with the terms of the BCA.
FUNCTION 930: GOVERNMENT-WIDE SAVINGS
----------
Function Summary
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
Function 930 includes various policies that produce
government-wide savings in multiple budget functions rather
than in single, specific budget functions. The resolution calls
for savings of $9.4 billion in budget authority and $6.6
billion in outlays in fiscal year 2014, all of which are
discretionary. The ten-year totals for budget authority and
outlay savings are $155.6 billion and $47.1 billion,
respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Federal-Employee Attrition. The budget includes
discretionary savings by assuming a reduction in the federal
civilian workforce through attrition, whereby the
administration would be permitted to hire one employee for
every three that leave government service. National-security
positions would be subject to exemption.
Elimination of Student-Loan Repayment for Government
Employees. The budget assumes discretionary savings by
eliminating the repayment by the government of student loans
for federal employees.
Reduce Appropriations Consistent with Equalizing Federal
Agency and Employee Contributions to Defined-Benefit Retirement
Plans: The policy described in the Income Security chapter of
this report would increase the share of federal retirement
benefits funded by the employee. This policy has the effect of
reducing the personnel costs for the employing agency. The
budget assumes savings from a reduction in agency
appropriations associated with the reduction in payments that
agencies make into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund for federal employee retirement.
FUNCTION 950: UNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
----------
Function Summary
This function consists of offsetting receipts to the
Treasury, which are recorded as negative budget authority and
outlays. Receipts recorded in this function are either intra-
budgetary (a payment from one federal agency to another, such
as agency payments to the retirement trust funds) or
proprietary (a payment from the public for some kind of
business transaction with the government). The main types of
receipts recorded in this function are the payments federal
employees and agencies make to employee retirement trust funds;
payments made by companies for the right to explore and produce
oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf; and payments by
those who bid for the right to buy or use public property or
resources, such as the electromagnetic spectrum. The function
also contains an off-budget component that reflects the federal
government's share of Social Security contributions for federal
employees.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
All transactions within function 950 are recorded as
mandatory. The resolution calls for -$92.3 billion in budget
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2014 (with the minus sign
indicating receipts into the Treasury). Over ten years, budget
authority and outlays total -$1.2 trillion.
On-budget amounts are -$75.9 billion in budget authority
and outlays in fiscal year 2014, and -$957 billion in budget
authority and outlays over ten years.
Off-budget amounts are -$16.3 billion in budget authority
and outlays in fiscal year 2014, and -$195 billion in budget
authority and outlays over ten years.
Illustrative Policy Options
Federal Fleet Sales. The President's Fiscal Commission
recommended several ways to achieve savings. This resolution
adopts many of their proposals, such as reducing the federal
auto fleet by 20 percent, excluding the Department of Defense
and the U.S. Postal Service. In 2010, the federal government
reported a worldwide inventory of more than 662,000 vehicles
and spent $4.6 billion on its fleet. In addition, the 2009
stimulus bill provided $300 million to ``green the Federal
fleet'' by purchasing 17,205 vehicles.
This resolution builds on the Fiscal Commission's
recommendation by proposing to sell a portion of the federal
fleet to reduce the deficit and to get rid of unneeded
vehicles, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.
Federal Real-Property Sales. The Fiscal Commission
highlighted potential budget savings from another area where
the mismanagement of taxpayer-owned assets and sheer amount of
waste are staggering: federal real estate and other property.
The federal real-property inventory is so massive that the
report accounting for it lags two years behind the current
budget year. The most recent General Services Administration's
Federal Real Property Report is from fiscal year 2010 and
summarizes data from 2009. With such large timing differences
and accompanying confusion, there is very little incentive for
agencies to dispose of unneeded properties and very few
repercussions from holding onto these properties indefinitely.
The federal government owns, leases, or manages 1.1 million
properties nationwide. Of those, non-defense buildings
accounted for at least 400,000 of the total. Yet the
government's track record for real-estate asset sales has been
poor.
In 2009, federal agencies received only about $50 million
in proceeds from the sale of 2,228 assets--an average of
$22,500 per property. Many buildings were simply given away as
below-market-value bargains or even for free. On top of that,
agencies reported spending $150 million in 2009 on the
operating costs alone of unneeded properties waiting to either
be sold or disposed.
The Committee urges the Office of Management and Budget to
pursue streamlining the asset-sale process; loosening
regulations for the disposal and sale of federal property to
eliminate red tape and waste; setting enforceable targets for
asset sales; and holding government agencies accountable for
the buildings they oversee. If done correctly, taxpayers can
recoup billions of dollars from selling unused government
property.
Federal Land. Currently, the federal government owns 650
million acres of land--almost 30 percent of the land area of
the United States. In addition to federal-fleet and real-
property sales, this resolution supports examining federal land
to see where cost savings can be achieved by selling unneeded
acreage in the open market--excluding National Parks,
wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers.
When the federal government holds lands that do not serve a
public purpose, it takes these lands and the potential private-
sector activity out of the federal, state, and local tax base.
The savings in this function only display the proceeds from
assets sales.
FUNCTION 970: OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
----------
Function Summary
This function includes funding for the prosecution of
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism and
other closely related activities.
Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution
This resolution calls for $93 billion in budget authority
and $46.6 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2014. These
amounts are House Budget Committee staff estimates of the
budgetary resources necessary to fulfill the President's
announced war policy. This function accommodates all of the
funding requested by the Department of Defense for military
operations and by the Department of State for the incremental,
non-enduring civilian activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq. The funding budgeted in this function is not to be used
as a reserve fund for other non-war activities.
Because the President has yet to submit his budget request,
this resolution was written without the benefit of the
estimates of the Departments of Defense and State as to the
costs of executing the ongoing war on terrorism. The levels
recommended here reflect staff estimates based on the
President's announced plans. Authority is provided in the
resolution to adjust these levels as necessary to ensure that
the war effort is fully funded.
Defense Activities. Given the complete withdrawal of U.S.
military forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, any funding from
this function for Iraq is solely for the purpose of providing
security assistance and cooperation with Iraqi security forces.
As the U.S.-Iraq relationship transitions to a more normal
state-to-state relationship, the funding for these activities
should also transition to the base budget. It is the
Committee's expectation that these activities will not be
funded on a permanent basis outside the appropriate agency
budgets.
For Afghanistan, this budget assumes implementation of the
34,000 troop drawdown announced by the President in his State
of the Union address. This implies a troop level of 31,000
troops for the majority of fiscal year 2014. After the Afghan
elections in the spring of 2014, it is expected that there will
be further troop withdrawals during the balance of 2014. Then-
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently stated that the
mission for U.S. forces will be primarily a support role in
2014, while Afghan forces take the lead on security.
Although the combat mission in Afghanistan is expected to
end in 2014, a recent report from the Department of Defense
states that the insurgency retains a significant regenerative
capacity. This budget accounts for the uncertainty of war by
allowing for an appropriate troop level throughout the
drawdown, enabling U.S. forces to pursue the remaining threats
in Afghanistan. The previous administration did not include the
full budgetary cost of the war beyond the current year, much
less subsequent years. Until there is a more definitive
estimate of the resources needed for subsequent years, this
resolution includes placeholder funding of $35 billion annually
beyond 2014.
Civilian Activities
This function also includes funding for the activities of
civilian agencies--primarily the State Department and the U.S.
Agency for International Development--as part of the integrated
civil-military strategy for securing American objectives in the
frontline states.
In 2013, $2.3 billion was requested for use for the
civilian presence in Iraq for ongoing operations that support
America's diplomatic platform in a high-threat environment.
This budget assumes a transition to base budget funds of any
continuing aid to Iraq (or a transition to Iraq self-funding)
in future years.
For Afghanistan, this budget assumes continued U.S.
civilian-led efforts to transfer security and governance
responsibilities to the Afghans, in addition to providing
foreign-assistance programs that promote economic development
and improve governance capacity. This budget also includes
funding for counternarcotics and criminal-justice programs. All
of these efforts are in support of the U.S. counterinsurgency
strategy in Afghanistan.
In order to succeed in Afghanistan, the United States must
continue partnering with Pakistan to counter the spread of
extremism, which threatens America and the world. Funding in
this function for FY 2014 is anticipated for the Pakistan
Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, which builds the capacity of
Pakistan's security forces to effectively combat terrorism
within its borders.
REVENUE
----------
Of the federal government's many intrusions into our lives,
the biggest is the tax code. Taxes are a fact of life. But
every dollar taxed is a dollar taken from a family, a worker, a
business, or an investor. So government must take only what it
needs and no more. Mindful of this responsibility, this budget
calls for a tax code that is simple, competitive, and fair--
because the current code fails on all three counts.
Challenge
Complex: Our current code is a Rubik's cube that taxpayers
spend precious time--and money--trying to crack. Since its
inception in 1913, the tax code has grown from roughly 400
pages in length to over 70,000. Since 2001, the code has
undergone almost 5,000 changes--more than one per day. As a
result, Americans spend 6 billion hours each year complying
with the code. About 60 percent pay other people to prepare
their tax returns. Another 30 percent use software, like Turbo
Tax. The average fee for an individual return is about $230,
while small businesses pay between $500 and $700 for help with
their forms. In return, the total cost of compliance is over
$160 billion per year--or 14 percent of all tax receipts.
That's roughly three times the amount we spend on
pharmaceutical research and development.
Unfair: Riddled with loopholes and carve-outs, the code
rewards the well-connected at the expense of the people. These
so-called tax preferences add up to over $1 trillion a year--
just under the total revenue the income tax collects. These
loopholes are unfair for two reasons: First, because the income
tax is progressive, upper-income individuals disproportionately
benefit from them. For example, the top 1 percent of taxpayers
reaps three times as much benefit from tax preferences
(excluding refundable credits) as middle-income earners.
Second, by poking holes in the tax base, Congress must raise
tax rates to make up for lost revenue.
Uncompetitive: The current code's greatest flaw is that it
hurts economic growth. By taking a bigger bite out of each
extra dollar a person makes, the code discourages expansion. At
some point the benefit of expanding an enterprise--or working
an extra hour--isn't worth the cost. And when businesses come
to that conclusion, the entire community suffers from the loss
in jobs and opportunity. The job-killing taxes from the
President's health-care law are an example of this.
This flaw extends to the corporate tax. Including state and
local taxes, the U.S. has the highest statutory corporate-tax
rate in the world at 39.2 percent--a huge competitive
disadvantage. Our rate is over ten percentage points higher
than the average rate of 27.8 percent among industrialized
countries.\1\ And though the corporate tax raises relatively
little revenue--about 10 percent of federal receipts--its
economic costs are large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the U.S. suffers from an outdated system. Most
countries have a ``territorial'' system, in which businesses
pay taxes only to the country where they earn the income. The
U.S., on the other hand, has a ``worldwide'' system, in which
businesses pay taxes not only to the host country but also to
the U.S. when they repatriate profits. In other words, they are
taxed twice. This system discourages businesses from investing
overseas profits in the U.S., costing us jobs and wage growth.
The CBO has found that ``domestic labor bears slightly more
than 70 percent of the burden'' of the corporate income tax.
In all three of these areas, the tax code is doing
significantly more harm than necessary.
Solution: Pro-Growth Tax Reform
Consolidate income-tax rates to 10 and 25 percent.
Lower the corporate rate to 25 percent.
Broaden the tax base by closing loopholes.
Adopt a ``territorial'' system of taxation.
This budget builds off work by House Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan.\2\ It paves the way
for a tax system that will improve the lives of working
families. They deserve a tax code that is simple, efficient,
and fair. They deserve an end to the confusion and
complications. They deserve a level playing field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See also, following this section of the report, a letter from
the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tax reform framework outlined by the House Ways and
Means Committee sets up the goal of collapsing the income tax's
seven brackets into two and closes the loopholes and carve-outs
for special interests. It begins with full repeal of the job-
killing taxes in the President's health-care law. It promotes
growth by letting people keep more of their money to save and
invest. And it restores fairness by treating all taxpayers
equally.
House Republicans have succeeded in shifting the
conversation on tax reform. There is significant bipartisan
agreement between both parties that we should lower rates and
broaden the base. The President and many of his party's leaders
have unfortunately chosen to exclude themselves from this
consensus, using additional revenue to fuel more spending
instead of spur economic growth. This budget understands the
purpose of tax reform is to improve the well-being of the
people, not to fund the growth of government bureaucracy.
Economists have shown that lowering overall rates and
broadening the tax base will promote economic growth and
support job creation by the private sector. There are many good
ideas on that front--growth-oriented tax plans that could
strengthen the economy and support the nation's funding
priorities. Congressman Woodall, for instance, has submitted a
fundamental tax-reform plan for consideration by the Ways and
Means Committee that would eliminate taxes on wages,
corporations, self-employment, capital gains, and gift and
death taxes in favor of a personal consumption tax that would
provide the economic certainty that American businesses,
entrepreneurs, and taxpayers desire. Congress should consider
this and the full myriad of pro-growth plans as it moves toward
tax reform.
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS LETTER
----------
WAYS AND MEANS LETTER
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, March 6, 2013.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on Budget,
Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Chairman Ryan: Since the start of the 112th Congress, the
Ways & Means Committee has engaged in an aggressive effort to
develop comprehensive tax reform legislation--with over 20
hearings, three joint hearings with the Senate Finance
Committee (unprecedented on tax issues in the past 70 years),
the release of two discussion drafts (on international taxation
and financial products), and the establishment of 11 bipartisan
working groups. The Committee intends to build on that work in
the first session of the 113th Congress by introducing and
reporting to the House of Representatives legislation that
provides for the comprehensive reform of the U.S. tax code. Our
ultimate goal remains enactment of comprehensive tax reform
during fiscal year 2014.
With American families continuing to struggle through high
rates of joblessness, stagnating wages, and weak economic
growth, it is critical that Congress respond to the calls from
bipartisan experts for comprehensive tax reform that would
achieve two critical goals:
1) A simpler and fairer tax code for families and
employers, and
2) Higher wages, more job creation and greater
investment stemming from lower tax rates for
individuals and businesses of all sizes.
To this end, the Committee intends to develop comprehensive
tax reform legislation that makes the tax code fairer and more
accountable to hardworking Americans by scaling back tax
preferences that distort economic behavior and that often
benefit only a narrow group of individuals or businesses. The
Committee will then use the resulting revenue to: (1) simplify
the tax code and (2) spur job creation and income growth
through lower tax rates and transition to a more modern and
competitive system of international taxation. Such an effort
would lead to a stronger economy, which would create more
American jobs and higher wages. More employment and higher
wages would lead to higher tax revenues which would
simultaneously address both the nation's economic and fiscal
problems.
While the Committee is committed to tax reform that
strengthens the economy, the Committee will continue to oppose
any and all efforts to increase tax revenues by any means other
than through economic growth. As the Congressional Budget
Office projects, the amount of taxes the government will take
from American families and businesses will double over the next
ten years. Clearly, Washington does not have a revenue problem.
America, however, does have an economic problem, in large
part due to our outdated, broken tax code. While the vast
majority of our foreign competitors have moved aggressively to
lower corporate tax rates and update their international tax
systems, the United States imposes the highest combined
federal-state corporate tax rate in the industrialized world
and relies on an outdated international tax regime designed
more than 50 years ago, when the United States faced virtually
no global competition. Furthermore, the top U.S. tax rate on
small business income is 44.6 percent, the top tax rate on
individuals' wages and salaries is 44 percent and the total tax
on investment income (capital gains and dividends) in the
United States is 55 percent.
American families and small businesses must navigate a maze
of different statutory tax rates, hidden rates, confusing
deductions, credits, limitations, phase-outs and the
Alternative Minimum Tax. The trifecta of (1) maddening
complexity, (2) high tax rates on business income, and (3) the
prevalence of double taxation of capital and investment, all
combine to suppress innovation, job creation, and economic
growth.
American families and businesses spend over $160 billion
and 6 billion hours every year trying to figure out their
taxes. Roughly 90 percent of Americans are forced to pay for
commercial tax preparation software or hire a tax professional
just to file their taxes. Even after all that, average
taxpayers are left to wonder whether someone with the resources
to hire a better accountant managed to get a ``better deal''
out of the tax system.
Furthermore, American corporations engage in elaborate tax
planning because the current tax code puts them at a
competitive disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors.
Here too the tax code is unfair as some companies are able to
use arcane and complex provisions of the tax code to reduce
their tax burden compared to their competitors. Companies
engage in complex transactions purely to reduce their tax
burden even when these schemes divert resources from more
productive investments.
These conditions necessitate that Congress tmdertake a
comprehensive rewrite of the tax code. Therefore, the Committee
requests that you include in the House's FY14 Budget Resolution
the authority for the Chairman of the Budget Committee to
adjust allocations and aggregates to provide for floor
consideration of legislation providing for the comprehensive
reform of the tax code that:
Simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to
American families and businesses and reduces the amount
of time and resources necessary to comply with tax
laws,
Substantially lowers tax rates for
individuals with a goal of achieving a two rate
structure of 10 and 25 percent.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent,
and
Transitions the tax code to a more
competitive system of international taxation.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited a stagnant
economy and a tax code that featured 16 brackets, with a top
rate of 70 percent. When he left office in 1989, the tax code
had been simplified down to just three brackets, with a top
rate of 28 percent, President Reagan's bipartisan tax reforms
proved to be a cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom
that occurred in the decade during his presidency and continued
in the decade that followed.
It is time to reclaim the Reagan legacy of enacting
fundamental tax reform in an era of divided government. By
making the tax code simpler and fairer, we can begin to regain
the trust of the American people that Washington can and is
working for them. By making the tax code more conducive to
innovation, investment and sustained job creation, we can
safeguard the American Dream for generations to come.
Sincerely,
DAVE CAMP, Chairman; Sam Johnson; Devin Nunes; Dave
G. Reichert; Peter J. Roskam; Kevin Brady;
Pat Tiberi; Charles W. Boustany, Jr.; Jim
Gerlach; Tom Price; Adrian Smith; Lynn
Jenkins; Kenny Marchant; Tom Reed; Mike
Kelly; Jim Renacci; Vern Buchanan; Aaron
Schock; Erik Paulsen; Diane Black; Todd
Young; Tim Griffin.
DIRECT SPENDING TRENDS AND REFORMS
----------
Background
Direct spending (also known as mandatory spending) remains
the fastest growing part of the spending-driven debt crisis the
nation faces. As part of the rules of the 113th Congress, the
House adopted a new reform to require the budget resolution to
display certain information on direct spending, split between
those programs that are means-tested and all other programs.
CBO reports that total non-interest mandatory spending in
FY2012 was slightly over $2 trillion, and will grow to over
$3.6 trillion by 2023, reflecting an average annual growth rate
of 5.5 percent--much faster than both CBO's projection of 2013
nominal economic growth of 2.9 percent and CBO's longer-term
projection of economic growth of 4.3 percent. Within overall
non-interest mandatory spending, the entitlements of Medicare
and Social Security are projected to continue growing much
faster than the economy as a whole, with Social Security
expected to grow from $768 billion in 2012 to $1,423 billion in
2023 and Medicare expected to grow from $466 billion in 2012 to
$903 billion.
Over the next decade, the major means-tested entitlements
are expected to grow by 6.2 percent per year--from $644 billion
in 2014 to $1,075 billion in 2023. Not only are these programs
expected to grow in the future, but they have grown
significantly over the past 40 years. The Congressional
Research Service calculated that spending on low-income
assistance programs was $2.66 billion in today's dollars in
1962, or approximately 2.6 percent of total federal outlays and
.5 percent of GDP. Just over the past ten years, major means-
tested entitlement programs have grown 6.7 percent per year,
from $309 billion in 2003 to $550 billion in 2012.
There are a number of reasons for this growth. Most
recently, the recession caused a significant amount of growth
in spending on low-income programs. This spending is expected
to recede as economic growth picks up. However, spending
remains at elevated levels for several programs--most notably,
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP
(formerly known as food stamps).Over the past ten years, the
SNAP program grew at 12.5 percent annually, ballooning the
program from one that cost $25 billion in 2003, to one that
cost $80 billion 2012. While this amount is projected to fall
over the next ten years, it remains at elevated levels compared
to prerecession projections. There are a number of reasons for
the continued growth in SNAP outside of the recent economic
downturn and subsequent slow recovery. Both the 2002 and 2008
Farm Bill's included several programmatic expansions to
benefits and eligibility. More importantly however, two changes
allowing state governments to game the eligibility and benefit
process have greatly expanded the program. The first,
categorical eligibility, allows states to make an individual
automatically eligible for SNAP benefits, regardless of the
traditional SNAP eligibility criteria if they receive a non-
cash benefit from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program. The intent behind categorical eligibility is to
simplify the process for both the applicant and the
administering agency. However, as states have expanded the use
of this procedure into non-cash services, it has vastly
increased the amount of individuals on the SNAP program.
Second, states have begun exploiting a loophole referred to
as ``heat and eat.'' Because of quirk in the law governing SNAP
benefits, states have been providing individuals with $1 or $5
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program checks in order to
artificially increase their SNAP benefit checks.
Other programs have also seen large increases. The
Supplemental Security Income was created as a needs-based
program that provides cash benefits to aged, blind, or disabled
persons with limited income and assets. When the program began,
the majority of payments went toward the aged; however, as the
program matured, a much greater percentage of beneficiaries
were under age 18 or between the ages of 18-64. Between 1990
and 2010, the amount of recipients under the age of 18
increased from 308 thousand to 1.2 million--an increase of
nearly 300 percent. During the same period, recipients aged 18-
64 increased 89 percent, while those aged 65 or more decreased.
Over the past decade, spending on SSI has grown by 5% per year.
The largest means-tested program in the federal budget is
Medicaid, the federal-state low-income health program.
Medicaid--and its related Children's Health Insurance Program--
has grown from 1.2 percent of GDP in 2000 to 1.7 percent of GDP
in 2012. Going forward, CBO projects federal Medicaid spending
to more than double over the next ten years, from $265 billion
in fiscal year 2013 to $572 billion in fiscal year 2023. The
primary reason for this significant spending growth is the
President's health-care law, which calls for major expansions
in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. The President's
health-care law, however, does nothing to remedy Medicaid's
perverse funding structure that gives states incentives to
expand, not save, nor does it alter the access issues facing
beneficiaries as providers refuse to participate in a system
that severely under-reimburses their services. Absent reform,
Medicaid will not be able to deliver on its promise to provide
a sturdy health-care safety net for society's most vulnerable.
Because of the flawed incentives in this program, it grew at
5.1 percent a year over the past ten years, and is projected to
grow at an astounding 8.0 percent a year over the next ten
years. This level of growth is clearly unsustainable.
FY 2014 BUDGET
The FY2014 Budget addresses both non-means-tested and
means-tested direct spending. Most importantly, it addresses
the drivers of our debt and deficits: our health programs. For
Medicare, this budget advances policies to put seniors, not the
federal government, in control of their health-care decisions.
Those in or near retirement would see no changes, while future
retirees would be given a choice of private plans competing
alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program on a
newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a
premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium
of the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan's cost.
The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that
the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions
worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional
assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier
seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of
their premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how their health-
care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against
each other on price and quality. This market competition will
act as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing
health-care costs.
For Medicaid, this budget converts the federal share of
Medicaid spending into an allotment tailored to meet each
State's needs, indexed for inflation and population growth.
Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all
approach that has tied the hands of state governments. Instead,
each state would have the freedom and flexibility and to tailor
a Medicaid program that fit the needs of its unique population.
Moreover, this budget repeals the Medicaid expansions in the
President's health-care law, relieving state governments of its
crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates.
For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this
budget also converts the current one-size-fits-all program into
a flexible allotment tailored to meet each state's needs,
indexed for the thrifty food plan and growth in the eligible
population. Additionally, it builds on the reforms and lessons
learned from the 1996 welfare-reform bill, which required
rigorous work incentives and time limits on receipt.
Additionally, in keeping with a recommendation from the
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, this
budget calls for federal employees--including Members of
Congress and their staff--to make greater contributions toward
their own retirement.
During the Committee's consideration of the budget
resolution, the majority and minority also worked together in a
good-faith effort to incorporate an amendment offered by the
minority. Although agreement on the language of the amendment
could not be reached, the goals of the amendment offered were
laudable and are shared by both Republicans and Democrats. It
is the policy of this budget that the House of Representatives
should support the goal of cutting poverty in half over the
next ten years, and work to extend equality of opportunity to
all Americans.
As Congress works to protect low-income and middle-income
Americans, this budget is premised on the belief that the
prospect of upward mobility should be in reach of every
American, and that priority must be given to maximizing the
effectiveness of anti-poverty programs across federal, state,
and local governments. Congress should work to remove the
barriers and obstacles that prevent the most vulnerable
Americans from taking advantage of economic and education
opportunities, and moving up the ladder of opportunity to join
the middle class and reach for the American Dream. By balancing
the budget, implementing comprehensive tax reform, and
reforming means-tested entitlement programs, this resolution is
designed to accomplish exactly these goals.
RECONCILIATION
----------
In 2012, the House passed a budget designed to provide a
fast-track procedure to replace the arbitrary sequester cuts
with sensible reforms of mandatory spending programs.
Unfortunately, the President threatened to veto the resulting
legislation, and the Senate did nothing while the sequester
approached. In the final analysis, the President's opposition
to sensible spending reforms and the Senate's failure to act
resulted in the March 1, 2013 sequester of $85.3 billion.
How Reconciliation Works
The 1974 Budget Act provides Congress with a special
procedure to give expedited consideration to bills enacting the
spending, revenue, and debt policies contained in the budget
resolution. To trigger these expedited procedures, the House
and Senate must reach agreement and include in the budget-
resolution conference report reconciliation instructions
calling on specific committees to achieve specified amounts of
savings in programs within their jurisdictions. The committees
choose which programs to address and which policies to adopt in
order to comply with the instructions.
Reconciliation in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Resolution
This budget gives reconciliation instructions to eight
committees--Agriculture, Education and the Workforce, Energy
and Commerce, Financial Services, Judiciary, Natural Resources,
Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means--to produce
legislation each reducing the deficit by at least $1 billion.
These instructions represent a placeholder or starting point
for negotiations with the Senate. As was demonstrated last
year, without engagement from the Senate, the reconciliation
process does not produce meaningful results. Absent a
conference agreement, reconciliation's special procedures in
the Senate cannot be implemented. While reconciliation provides
an expedited process to implement the budget resolution's
assumptions, it is not the only avenue. The budget proposes to
implement all $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction through the
regular legislative process if reconciliation is not ultimately
used.
THE LONG-TERM BUDGET OUTLOOK
----------
The debt crisis ahead is the most urgent challenge we face
today. But the deeper source of the crisis is the drift, under
both parties, to expand the size of government. To avert the
debt crisis, we need to stop this encroachment and to revive
community in American civil society.
This budget turns the tide. It makes $4.6 trillion in
spending reductions over the next ten years. This budget
reforms government spending programs responsibly. It protects
key priorities while eliminating waste. And it avoids sudden
cuts to current services, such as those the country would
experience under a debt crisis.
These reductions are hardly draconian. Under current law,
the federal government will spend $46 trillion over the next
ten years. Under this proposal, it will spend roughly $41
trillion. And this budget does not make sudden cuts. Instead,
it increases spending at a more manageable rate. For instance,
on the current path, spending will rise by an annual average of
5.0 percent. Under this budget, it will rise by only 3.4
percent.
Washington cannot keep spending money it does not have. So
this budget achieves balance in 2023 by holding revenue and
spending at 19.1 percent of GDP. A balanced budget is a common-
sense, responsible goal. It will boost Americans' confidence
that their government is getting its fiscal house in order.
At the same time it submitted its budget and economic
outlook in February, CBO also issued an analysis that shows the
macroeconomic impact of various fiscal scenarios. In this more
recent analysis, CBO projects that a $4 trillion reduction in
primary deficits would result in gross national product being
1.7 percent higher in 2023 than it would be under current law.
The positive economic feedback from a $4 trillion deficit-
reduction package would produce further dividends. In 2023
alone, it would reduce spending by $26 billion, increase
revenue by $55 billion, and reduce debt held by the public by
$185 billion. The House Republican budget is projected to have
a surplus of $7 billion in 2023 without incorporating CBO's
economic feedback. When the economic feedback is incorporated,
the House Republican budget would have a 2023 surplus of $89
billion. Over the ten-year window, the positive economic
feedback would bring spending down an additional $75 billion,
increase revenue by $112 billion, and reduce deficits by a
cumulative $186 billion.
President Obama has yet to put forward a budget this year,
despite his legal obligation to do so by the first Monday of
February. Until he meets this statutory obligation, we are left
with last year's budget proposal as the definitive statement of
his vision for the nation's future. Unlike this budget, the
President's budget never balanced--and it never paid off our
debt. That budget included a stunning admission on the debt
trajectory in the years ahead. The President's budget states
that under his preferred policies, the federal government's
``fiscal position gradually deteriorates,'' and his latest
budget projects a debt spiraling out of control.
The United States has dealt with financial problems in the
past. After the Revolutionary War, our debt stood at the then-
staggering sum of $80 million--or 40 percent of our economy.
The country suffered from rampant inflation and high interest
rates. Political divisions ran deep. Yet, the country
prevailed. Leaders from both sides--Alexander Hamilton of the
Federalists and James Madison of the Democratic-Republicans--
put aside their differences to forge a solution. Both parties
worked together to pay down the debt. And by the mid-1830s, the
debt was virtually eliminated.
More recently, in 1997, a Democratic president and a
Republican Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, which
inaugurated four years of balanced budgets. This budget follows
that model. It incorporates ideas from both parties to address
the most pressing issue of the day: our national debt. In so
doing, it aims not to reject responsibility--but to solve the
issue once and for all.
The House Republican budget tackles the debt challenge, to
help grow our economy today and to ensure the next generation
inherits a stronger, more prosperous America. In contrast to
the dangerous status quo, this budget lifts the crushing burden
of debt.
It does so by bringing down spending to 19.1 percent of
GDP, equal to the levels of revenues. It provides that spending
moving forward will not exceed this level, ensuring the budget
remains balanced. To achieve this outcome, it puts in place
fundamental reforms to protect and strengthen Medicare by
gradually transitioning the program to a premium-support
system. Along with Medicaid and other spending reforms, these
changes are critical to putting the nation on sound financial
footing going forward.
SECTION-BY-SECTION DESCRIPTION
----------
The concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year
establishes an overall budgetary framework which includes:
aggregate levels of total new budget authority and outlays;
total revenues and the amount by which revenues should be
changed; the surplus or deficit; new budget authority and
outlays for each major functional category; the debt held by
the public; and the debt subject to the statutory limit.
SECTION 1. THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
Subsection (a) establishes the budgetary levels for fiscal
year 2014 and each of the nine years following that budget
year, fiscal years 2015 through 2023. For a concurrent
resolution on the budget, this is required by section 301(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The term ``budget year'' means, with respect to a session
of Congress, the fiscal year of the Government that starts on
October 1 of the calendar year in which that session begins and
is set out in section 250(c)(12) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The years following the
budget year are termed ``outyears'' and are so defined in
section 250(c)(13) of that Act.
For the budget year, fiscal year 2014, the concurrent
resolution on the budget reported by the Committee on the
Budget establishes a ceiling on spending and a floor on
revenue. Under the terms of section 301 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, this report sets an allocation of budget
authority and outlays to the Committee on Appropriations of the
House. That committee in turn suballocates that amount to its
twelve subcommittees for spending on the various programs,
projects and activities within the jurisdiction of the
subcommittees.
Allocations are also given to authorizing committees, those
committees with spending authority, though in addition to the
fiscal year 2014 allocation to the Appropriations Committee,
these authorizing committees may not spend more than the
allocation for the budget year or over the 10-year period
provided for by the concurrent resolution on the budget.
Subsection (b) sets out the table of contents of the
resolution.
Title I--Recommended Levels and Amounts
SECTION 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
As required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, this section establishes the recommended levels for
revenue, the reduction in revenue provided for in the
resolution, total new budget authority, total budget outlays,
surpluses or deficits, debt held by the public, and the debt
subject to the statutory limit. The recommended level of
revenue operates as a floor against which all revenue bills are
measured pursuant to section 311 of the Budget Act.
Similarly, the recommended levels of new budget authority
and budget outlays serve as a ceiling on the consideration of
spending. The surplus or deficit levels reflect only on-budget
outlays and revenue and do not reflect most outlays and
receipts related to the Social Security program and United
States Postal Service operations.
The debt subject to statutory limit aggregates refers to
the portion of gross Federal debt issued by the Treasury to the
public or another government fund or account, whereas the debt
held by the public is the amount of debt issued and held by
entities or individuals other than the U.S. Government.
SECTION 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES
Also required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, section 102 establishes the budgetary levels for
each major functional category for fiscal year 2014, the budget
year, and for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
These major functional categories are as follows:
050 National Defense
150 International Affairs
250 General Science, Space, and Technology
270 Energy
300 Natural Resources and Environment
350 Agriculture
370 Commerce and Housing Credit
400 Transportation
450 Community and Regional Development
500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services
550 Health
570 Medicare
600 Income Security
650 Social Security
700 Veterans Benefits and Services
750 Administration of Justice
800 General Government
900 Net Interest
920 Allowances
930 Government-wide Savings
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism
Title II--Reconciliation
SECTION 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
As permitted by section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, this concurrent resolution on the budget includes
reconciliation instructions to specified committees of the
House. These instructions require those committees to submit
legislative text to amend laws in their jurisdictions to
achieve an amount of deficit reduction. The various committee
recommendations are submitted to the Committee on the Budget,
which then binds them together and votes whether to report the
resulting bill to the House. The Committee on the Budget may
only report the legislation submitted to it. The Committee may
not make any substantive changes.
Section 201(a) directs eight authorizing committees to
transmit changes in programs within their jurisdiction to the
Committee on the Budget that achieve a specified amount of
deficit reduction over a ten-year period.
Section 201(b) instructs the committees to submit
legislative language to the Committee on the Budget. These
committees are as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Natural Resources,
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the
Committee on Ways and Means. (See reconciliation instructions
for each committee in Table xx.)
The reconciliation instructions in this concurrent
resolution instruct each committee to reduce the deficit by a
specified amount. Deficits are calculated by the net effect of
changes in outlays and revenue a measure may make.
Though the committees receiving instructions determine the
policy and program changes, outlay savings must be in the
direct spending category. For instance, a reduction in an
authorization level for spending subject to annual
appropriations is categorized as authorizing future
discretionary spending and would not be estimated as producing
direct spending savings as the reconciliation process requires.
In addition, clause 7 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives prohibits the consideration of a concurrent
resolution on the budget that includes instructions for a
reconciliation bill that has the net effect of increasing
outlays.
Similarly, the committee receiving an instruction under
this section determines the policy as to how revenue changes
are made. A submission to the Committee on the Budget may
increase or decrease revenue, depending on the instruction.
The committees determine the changes in law necessary to
achieve the specified amount of deficit reduction for the
period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
Title III--Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040, and 2050
SECTION 301. LONG-TERM BUDGETING
This section sets out recommended budgetary levels for
certain budget aggregates for each of fiscal years 2030, 2040,
and 2050 as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the
United States as follows:
Federal Revenues
Fiscal Year 2030: 19.1 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 19.1 percent
Fiscal Year 2050: 19.1 percent
Budget Outlays
Fiscal Year 2030: 19.1 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 19.1 percent
Fiscal Year 2050: 19.1 percent
Deficits
Fiscal Year 2030: 0 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 0 percent
Fiscal Year 2050: 0 percent
Title IV--Reserve Funds
SECTION 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary
enforcement levels for a measure that fully repeals the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the
health care-related provisions of the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152). Those measures
are the health care bills enacted into law in 2010. These
adjustments would not be available for measures that only
offered a partial repeal, such as a repeal of certain sections
of these laws. The reserve fund is intended to apply to the
health care provisions and would not apply to the repeal of the
education-related provisions of the reconciliation act referred
to above.
A measure repealing the health care laws must solely
achieve that purpose and may not include language which is
extraneous to that purpose, whether such language has a
budgetary effect or not. In addition, the repeal must be
permanent and may not include a sunset date.
Multiple measures may take advantage of the reserve fund,
as long as each meets the parameters outlined, until such
repeal is enacted.
An amendment (or a motion to recommit), if it qualifies
under the terms of this reserve fund, may be offered to an
unrelated measure, but should such a measure as amended be
returned to the House as a conference report or an amendment
between the Houses, no adjustments would be made if that
measure contained text unrelated to the purpose of this reserve
fund which is to repeal the laws referred to above.
A measure receiving an adjustment under the terms of this
reserve fund may be open for amendment, subject to the special
rule providing for its consideration, but the amendment, if it
does not meet the terms outlined in this section, must be
compliant with the Budget Act and the Rules of the House
without regard to the adjustments made to the underlying
measure.
SECTION 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REFORM OF THE 2010
HEALTH CARE LAWS
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary
enforcement levels for a measure that reforms or replaces the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148)
or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-152), as long as the measure is deficit-neutral
for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023. Those public
laws are the health care bills enacted in 2010.
For purposes of this section, if a bill, joint resolution,
amendment or conference report fulfills the purpose of
reforming or replacing these health care laws and is deficit
neutral in the applicable period, then legislative text not
related to these purposes may be included as long as the entire
measure meets these two requirements.
SECTION 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE MEDICARE
PROVISIONS OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary
enforcement levels for a measure that repeals the Medicare
spending cuts in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(Public Law 111-148) or the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), as long as the
measure is deficit-neutral for the period of fiscal years 2014
through 2023.
A measure that repeals only part of these Medicare spending
reductions is also eligible for these adjustments. A series of
bills, joint resolutions, amendments or conference reports may
receive adjustments under this section, only limited by the
cumulative amount of the Medicare spending reductions included
in the public laws referenced, as estimated by the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget.
Once the limit is reached through enacted measures, no more
adjustments may be made under this reserve fund. The amount
necessary to repeal the Medicare spending cuts is a cap on the
adjustments that may be made under this section, but as
measures are considered in the House that meet these terms, the
amount is not reduced until such measure fulfilling this
purpose is enacted.
SECTION 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to applicable committees and to adjust other budgetary
enforcement levels in this resolution for a measure amending or
superseding the system for updating payments under section 1848
of the Social Security Act, as long as the measure does not
increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 2014 through
2023.
SECTION 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE TAX CODE
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to the Committee on Ways and Means and to adjust other
budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution for bills,
joint resolutions, amendments or conference reports reforming
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as long as such a measure
does not increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years
2014 through 2023.
Since 1997, the Rules of the House of Representatives (now
Rule XIII, clause 3(h)(2)), have required the publication of a
macroeconomic impact analysis from the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) of legislation amending the tax code. This
section is designed to facilitate comprehensive, fundamental
tax reform that significantly broadens the tax base and lowers
tax rates (see the Revenue chapter of this report for
additional details). Reform of this sort could have significant
economic effects. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget
will consider the JCT macroeconomic impact analysis in
determining if the conditions in this section have been met.
SECTION 406. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE AGREEMENTS
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to the Committee on Ways and Means and to adjust other
budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution for legislation
that implements a trade agreement, as long as such a measure
does not increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years
2014 through 2023.
SECTION 407. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to the Committee on Ways and Means for legislation that causes
a decrease in revenue. The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this
concurrent resolution if the measure does not increase the
deficit in the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023. This
allows the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill that
reduces revenue below the level provided for in the concurrent
resolution on the budget but only if it decreases outlays by an
equal or greater amount in the applicable period.
SECTION 408. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND
SCHOOLS
This concurrent resolution provides for a deficit-neutral
reserve fund to accommodate the extension of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-393) in order to provide the federal government, local
counties, and industry the time necessary to enact, implement,
and begin performing sustained yield harvests of federal timber
lands on which local counties are financially dependent. The
plan assumed by this reserve fund is based on the best
available science, provides for active forest management to
improve the health of the resource, creates strong local
family-wage job markets, and provides rural counties with
fiscal independence from federal payments owed to them because
of a lack of timber harvests on federal lands.
SECTION 409. IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEFICIT AND LONG-TERM DEBT REDUCTION
AGREEMENT
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels in this resolution to accommodate the
enactment of a deficit and long-term debt reduction agreement
if it includes permanent spending reductions and reforms to
direct spending programs.
Under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), at least $1.2
trillion in deficit reduction was to be accomplished in the
period of fiscal years 2013 through 2021 by legislation
recommended by a specially created Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction. When that committee was unable to meet that
budget goal, an automatic enforcement procedure ensured that
this deficit reduction was achieved but did so in a way that
focused disproportionately on the 36 percent of the budget that
is approved annually through the appropriations process.
Under the fiscal year 2013 sequester, for example,
discretionary spending bore fully 80 percent of the spending
cuts and in fiscal year 2014 discretionary spending is
estimated to absorb 84 percent of the automatic enforcement
burden. Given the projected 78 percent growth of mandatory
spending programs by 2023, the BCA's focus on discretionary
spending is misplaced and inadequate to addressing the deficit
and debt problems facing the nation. It is contemplated that an
agreement achieving significant deficit reduction and long-term
debt reduction will reallocate the burden of the BCA automatic
enforcement procedures more equitably.
Title V--Estimates of Direct Spending
SECTION 501. DIRECT SPENDING
Subsection (a) notes the average and estimated average rate
of growth in means-tested direct spending for the 10-year
periods before and after fiscal year 2014 respectively. It also
proposes reforms to the means-tested category of direct
spending.
Subsection (b) notes the average and estimated average rate
of growth in nonmeans-tested direct spending for the 10-year
periods before and after fiscal year 2014 respectively. It also
proposes reforms to the nonmeans-tested category of direct
spending.
This section is required under the Separate Orders of H.
Res. 5 (113th Congress) which implements the Rules of the House
of Representatives and is a requirement for the consideration
of a concurrent resolution on the budget for the 113th
Congress. See section designated ``Direct Spending Trends and
Reforms'' within this report for more information on Section
501.
Title VI--Budget Enforcement
SECTION 601. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) prohibits any general or continuing
appropriation providing for advance appropriations that do not
fall into certain specified exceptions.
Subsection (c) provides the list of excepted programs that
may receive advance appropriations. Those accounts are referred
to in this report in the section designated as ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations'' within this report.
Subsection (d) specifically sets a limit on the amount of
total allowable advance appropriations for fiscal year 2015. It
allows advance appropriations of up to $55.483 billion for
fiscal year 2015 for Veterans Medical Services, Veterans
Medical Support and Compliance, and Veterans Medical Facilities
accounts of the Veterans Health Administration. Under the terms
of Section 603 of the concurrent resolution, this level of
spending may be revised upon the review of the budget submitted
by the President required under 31 U.S.C. 1105(a).
It also allows up to $28.852 billion for the programs
referred to in subsection (c).
Subsection (e) defines advance appropriation as any new
discretionary budget authority provided in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report making general or
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015.
SECTION 602. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
This section permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to adjust levels and allocations in this budget
resolution upon enactment of legislation changing concepts or
definitions.
SECTION 603. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS AND APPROPRIATE
BUDGETARY LEVELS
Subsection (a) sets out a procedure to facilitate the
consideration of legislation subjecting direct spending to
annual appropriations. Under current law, there are impediments
to reclassifying direct spending as discretionary spending
since once the direct spending is eliminated, effectively the
purpose is eliminated as well.
Under current practice, if the intent is to preserve the
purpose, but authorize the program and subject it to annual
appropriations, the Committee on Appropriations would have to
find additional resources within its section 302(a) allocation,
as required to be set in the report on the budget resolution by
section 301(e)(2)(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Under the terms of this subsection, should an authorizing
committee want to retain the purpose of a direct spending
program, but determines it should be subject to annual
appropriations, it can, at the time it eliminates the direct
spending, authorize appropriations for the program. If that
elimination of the direct spending and authorization of
appropriations is enacted, the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may increase the 302(a) allocation of budgetary
resources to the Committee on Appropriations by an amount up to
the authorized level of appropriations for the same purpose in
fiscal year 2014.
This rule holds the Committee on Appropriations harmless if
it appropriates money under the terms of that authorization
because the allocation under section 302(a) set in this report
is adjusted.
Subsection (b)(1) sets out findings related to the
statutory requirement that the President submit an annual
budget by the first Monday in February of each year.
Subsection (b)(2) provides authority to the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget to adjust the allocations, aggregates,
and other appropriate budgetary levels as necessary once the
President's budget request has been submitted to Congress as is
required under section 1105(a) of Title 31 of the United States
Code.
The limitation on advance appropriations for veterans
medical care in section 601(d)(1) of this concurrent resolution
is based on information provided in the President's budget
submitted in February 2012 and is for the fiscal year that
begins in October of 2014. The Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget is authorized by this section to update this limit on
advance appropriations.
The level of funding for Overseas Contingency Operations/
Global War on Terrorism is an estimate based on indications by
the President pursuant to that purpose. This section authorizes
the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust the
relevant aggregates, allocations, and budgetary levels in this
resolution to ensure that commitment is fulfilled.
The levels included in this concurrent resolution on the
budget reflect the total level of discretionary budget
authority, prior to any authorized adjustments, provided for in
the spending limits in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted under
section 251A of that Act). The discretionary spending limits
for fiscal year 2014 will be set in the fiscal year 2014
Sequester Preview Report, which was supposed to have been
submitted together with the President's budget on February 4,
2013.
In the absence of this preview report for the fiscal year
2014 discretionary spending category limits, this resolution
uses estimates provided by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office.
This section authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget to adjust the allocation to the Appropriations
Committee provided to it under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act to reflect the preview report that
will be included in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget
submission.
Subsection (b)(3) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget to adjust levels and allocations in this
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect technical and
economic assumptions in the most recent baseline published by
the Congressional Budget Office.
Subsection (c) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget to determine the levels and adjustments provided for
in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
SECTION 604. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING
Subsection (a) establishes a point of order against the
consideration of measures increasing direct spending by $5
billion or more for any 10-year period within 40 years starting
in fiscal year 2024.
Subsection (b) explains that there are four consecutive
ten-year periods as referred to in subsection (a) that would be
as follows:
Fiscal years 2024 through 2033;
Fiscal years 2034 through 2043;
Fiscal years 2044 through 2053;
Fiscal years 2054 through 2063.
SECTION 605. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS
Subsection (a) provides that the administrative expenses of
the Social Security Administration and the United States Postal
Service are reflected in the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations. This language is necessary to ensure that the
Committee on Appropriations retains control of administrative
expenses through the annual appropriations process.
Subsection (b) provides for a special rule stating the
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations of the House is
enforced under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 using
estimates of the budgetary effects of a measure and includes
any off-budget discretionary amounts.
Subsection (c) allows the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to adjust the spending or revenue levels of this
concurrent resolution for legislation, if reported by the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to reform the
Federal retirement system. The Chairman is permitted to make
adjustments only if a measure would not cause an increase in
the deficit in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal years 2014 through
2023.
SECTION 606. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND
AGGREGATES
Subsection (a) details the allocation and aggregate
adjustment procedures required to accommodate legislation
provided for in this resolution. It provides that the
adjustments apply while the legislation is under consideration
and take effect upon enactment of the legislation. In addition,
this subsection requires the adjustments to be printed in the
Congressional Record.
Subsection (b) requires, for purposes of enforcement of the
concurrent resolution, aggregate and allocation levels
resulting from adjustments made pursuant to the terms of this
resolution have the same effect as if adopted in the originally
adopted aggregates and allocations.
Subsection (c) provides an exemption for legislation for
which the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget has made
adjustments in the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate budgetary levels of the resolution and that
complies with this Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. By such
an exemption, such legislation is subject to neither the Cut-
As-You-Go point of order (clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives) nor section 604 of the concurrent
resolution on the budget (the long-term spending point of
order).
In addition, this subsection (c)(2) provides that section
314(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 does not apply
to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report
that provides new budget authority for a fiscal year that does
not cause the allocation of new budget authority made pursuant
to section 302(a) of that Act for that fiscal year to be
exceeded or the sum of the limits on the security and non-
security category in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act as reduced pursuant to section 251A of that Act.
Section 314(f) prohibits the consideration of measures that
would cause either of the two statutory spending category
limits, security or nonsecurity, to be breached for a fiscal
year. The 302(a) allocation for the House Appropriations
Committee, provided by the concurrent resolution under the
requirements of the Budget Act, is the sum of these two
categories. Though the section refers to the sum of the
categories, the effect of paragraph (2) of subsection (c), the
operative component is the test as to whether the
Appropriations Committee is within its 302(a) allocation--if
so, the 314(f) point of order will not apply even if one of the
category limits, either security or nonsecurity, is exceeded by
that measure.
SECTION 607. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) provides specific authority for the Chairman
or Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget to request a
supplemental estimate for any program affecting or establishing
Federal loans or loan guarantees. Under current law, such a
measure would be scored on a ``net present value'' basis under
the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act found in Title V of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The supplemental estimate
would be scored using a ``fair value'' basis that generally
incorporates a more realistic market risk factor.
Subsection (c) requires that, whenever the Congressional
Budget Office prepares an estimate of the cost of legislation
with a cost related to a housing or residential mortgage
program under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the
Director must also provide an estimate of the ``fair value'' of
the assets and liabilities affected.
Subsection (d) allows the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to use the supplemental estimates to determine
compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and other
budgetary enforcement controls.
SECTION 608. TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY TO THE
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS
This section provides that for purposes of budget
enforcement, transfers of funds from the general fund of the
Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund are to be counted as new
budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the
transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs.
SECTION 609. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
Subsection (a) provides for a separate section 302(a)
allocation under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and is
set out in this report in allocation tables, to the Committee
on Appropriations for overseas contingency operations and the
global war on terrorism (OCO/GWOT). For purposes of enforcing
the point of order set out in section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal year'' and
the ``total of fiscal years'' refer to fiscal year 2014 only.
This separate allocation is the exclusive allocation for OCO/
GWOT under section 302(a).
It states that any provision designated as such under
section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 which raises the statutory spending
limits by the amount designated will be counted toward the
separate OCO/GWOT allocation and not to the general section
302(a) allocation.
Subsection (b) provides that the procedure of adjusting the
general 302(a) allocation under section 314 of the Budget Act
for this purpose does not apply, as it is unnecessary with the
special allocation.
SECTION 610. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS
This section provides for the general application of the
text of this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Title VII--Policy Statements
SECTION 701. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on promoting economic
growth and job creation assumed by this concurrent resolution
on the budget.
SECTION 702. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on tax reform assumed by
this concurrent resolution on the budget.
SECTION 703. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent
resolution on the budget is to protect those in or near
retirement from any disruptions to their Medicare benefits and
offer future beneficiaries the same health care options
available to Members of Congress.
Subsection (c) sets out the assumptions of this concurrent
resolution on the budget for the parameters of future Medicare
reforms.
SECTION 704. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on Social Security assumed
by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
SECTION 705. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on higher education
affordability assumed by this concurrent resolution on the
budget.
SECTION 706. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) directs congressional committees through
their oversight activities to identify and achieve savings
through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated balances
that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the Federal
Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under
programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national
security, and Treasury authority to finance the national debt.
Subsection (c) provides that Congress, with the assistance
of the Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors
General, and other appropriate agencies should make it a high
priority to review unobligated balances and identify savings
for deficit reduction.
While there is year-to-year variability, unobligated
balances have generally been trending upwards over the past ten
years, from $253 billion at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $725
billion at the end of fiscal year 2011. According to the Office
of Management and Budget, federal agencies will have an
estimated $698 billion in unobligated balances at the close of
fiscal year 2014, though agencies tend to overestimate their
rate of obligations. Legislation introduced by Dr. Tom Price of
Georgia (H.R.828) would rescind $45 billion in unobligated
discretionary funds within 60 days of enactment. CBO has
informally estimated that such a measure could reduce spending
by approximately $22 billion.
The large sums of unobligated balances indicate that there
are major opportunities for savings to reduce the deficit.
Additional investigation is necessary to determine what portion
of these anticipated unobligated balances can be cancelled or
rescinded for deficit reduction without abrogating the Federal
Government's contractual obligations or reducing or disrupting
federal commitments under high priority programs and Treasury's
authority to finance the national debt.
A reasonable goal would be to reduce unobligated balances
by 10 percent, excluding Departments of Defense, Treasury,
Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration, to
achieve savings for deficit reduction.
SECTION 707. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER
DOLLARS
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent
resolution on the budget is to identify any savings that can be
achieved through greater productivity and efficiency gains in
the operation and maintenance of House services and resources.
SECTION 708. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that each Congressional Committee
shall as part of its annual Views and Estimates letter to the
Committee on the Budget submit recommendations for reductions
in spending that result from that committee's oversight
activities.
SECTION 709. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING
This section states that the committees of jurisdiction
should review all unauthorized programs funded through annual
appropriations to determine if the programs are operating
efficiently and effectively and reauthorize only those programs
that in the committees' judgment should continue to receive
funding.
Title VIII--Sense of the House Provisions
SECTION 801. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT
This section expresses the sense of the House that
additional legislative action is needed to ensure that States
have the necessary resources to collect all child support that
is owed to families and to allow them to pass 100 percent of
support on to families without financial penalty.
It also expresses the sense that when 100 percent of child
support payments are passed to the child, rather than spent on
administrative expenses, program integrity is improved and
child support participation increases.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS
----------
The spending and revenue levels established in the budget
resolution are executed through two parallel, but separate,
mechanisms: allocations to the appropriations and authorizing
committees; and, when necessary, reconciliation directives to
the authorizing committees.
As required under section 302(a) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the discretionary
spending levels established in the budget resolution are
allocated to the Appropriations Committee and the direct
spending levels are allocated to each of the authorizing
committees with direct spending authority of each House of
Congress.
These allocations appear in the report accompanying the
budget resolution, and they are enforced through points of
order (see the section of this report titled: ``Enforcing the
Budget Resolution ''). Amounts provided under `current law'
encompass programs that affect direct spending--entitlements
and other programs that have spending authority or offsetting
receipts. Amounts subject to discretionary action refer to
programs that require subsequent legislation to provide the
necessary spending authority. Amounts provided under
`reauthorizations' reflect amounts assumed to be provided in
subsequent legislation reauthorizing expiring direct spending
programs.
Allocations of budget authority and outlays are provided
for the budget year (fiscal year 2014), and the 10-year period
(fiscal years 2014 through 2023). Section 302 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as
modified by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) requires that
allocations of budget authority be provided in the report
accompanying the budget resolution for the 1st fiscal year and
at least the 4 ensuing fiscal years (except for the Committee
on Appropriations, which receives an allocation only for the
budget year).
COMMITTEES OF AUTHORIZATION
The report (or the joint statement of managers in the
instance of a conference report) accompanying the concurrent
resolution on the budget allocates to the authorizing
committees a sum of new budget authority along with the
attendant outlays required to fund the direct spending within
their jurisdiction. The committees may be allocated additional
budget authority should increases in spending be required in
their jurisdiction. This occurs when the budget resolution
assumes a new or expanded direct spending program. Such
spending authority must be provided through subsequent
legislation and is not controlled through the annual
appropriations process.
302(a) Allocations
Because the spending authority for authorizing committees
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations are established for
the budget year commencing on October 1, and a 10-year total
for fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
Unlike the Committee on Appropriations, each authorizing
committee is provided a single allocation of new budget
authority (divided between current law and expected policy
action) not provided through annual appropriations. These
committees are not required to file 302(b) allocations. Bills
first effective in fiscal year 2014 are measured against the
level for that year included in the fiscal year 2014 budget
resolution and also the 10-year period of fiscal year 2014
through 2022.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
The report accompanying the concurrent resolution on the
budget allocates to the Committee on Appropriations a lump sum
of discretionary budget authority assumed in the resolution and
corresponding outlays for a single fiscal year.
302(a) Allocations
Because the spending authority for authorizing committees
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations in the budget
resolution are for the budget year, which is the fiscal year
2014 that commences on October 1, 2012, and a 10-year total for
fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
302(b) Allocations
Once a 302(a) allocation is provided to it by the
concurrent resolution on the budget for a budget year, the
Appropriations Committee is required to divide the allocation
among its subcommittees. Though the number of subcommittees has
varied over time, for budget year 2014, there are twelve. The
amount each subcommittee receives constitutes its suballocation
pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Each appropriation bill reported by a subcommittee
providing budget authority for programs within its jurisdiction
for the budget year must not breach this 302(b) suballocation.
The sum of the suballocations must equal the 302(a) allocation
provided, though an additional 302(b) suballocation may be made
and assigned to the full Appropriations Committee. This
additional suballocation must be an amount in the form of a
positive whole number.
Under section 302(c) of the Budget Act, Appropriations Acts
may not be considered on the floor of the House before these
302(b) suballocations are made.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines a `budget
year' as the fiscal year starting in the calendar year in which
a session of Congress first meets. Since the second session of
the 112th Congress first met on January 5, 2012 (pursuant to
Public Law 111-289), for the purposes of this concurrent
resolution on the budget, the budget year is fiscal year 2014.
In general, bills, conference reports, joint resolutions,
concurrent resolutions, cease to exist at the end of each
Congress (in the House of Representatives). When a new Congress
meets, though, the House extends rules from the previous
Congress through a simple House Resolution. In this way, the
Budget Resolution is extended into the new Congress. The budget
year, thus, may change, but for purposes of enforcement, the
first fiscal year for the budget resolution remains the same.
TABLE 11.--ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Discretionary Action:
BA..................................................... 966,375
OT..................................................... 1,114,260
Global War on Terrorism:
BA..................................................... 93,000
OT..................................................... 46,621
Current Law Mandatory:
BA..................................................... 761,123
OT..................................................... 750,691
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 12.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE
[On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 92,937 902,350
OT.............................. 89,974 897,262
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -2,631 -209,044
OT.............................. -2,501 -208,556
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 90,306 693,306
OT.......................... 87,473 688,706
===============================
Armed Services:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 150,925 1,776,043
OT.............................. 150,804 1,779,929
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 150,925 1,776,043
OT.......................... 150,804 1,779,929
===============================
Financial Services:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 21,032 134,620
OT.............................. 9,959 -43,252
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -21,712 -217,458
OT.............................. -7,430 -198,921
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... -680 -82,838
OT.......................... 2,529 -242,173
===============================
Education & Workforce:
Current Law:
BA.............................. -25,592 3,426
OT.............................. -21,750 776
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -22,996 -1,604,166
OT.............................. -20,659 -1,596,356
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... -48,588 -1,600,740
OT.......................... -42,409 -1,595,580
===============================
Energy & Commerce:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 357,804 5,084,049
OT.............................. 354,134 5,078,840
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -11,465 -94,439
OT.............................. -10,428 -94,325
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 346,339 4,989,610
OT.......................... 343,706 4,984,515
===============================
Foreign Affairs:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 29,154 241,749
OT.............................. 26,121 235,371
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 29,154 241,749
OT.......................... 26,121 235,371
===============================
Oversight & Government Reform:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 102,084 1,197,708
OT.............................. 98,451 1,162,761
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -11,758 -165,996
OT.............................. -11,758 -165,996
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 90,326 1,031,712
OT.......................... 86,693 996,765
===============================
Homeland Security:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 1,916 22,255
OT.............................. 1,904 22,183
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -305 -12,575
OT.............................. -305 -12,575
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 1,611 9,680
OT.......................... 1,599 9,608
===============================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 12.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE--Continued
[On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Administration:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 39 370
OT.............................. 5 205
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -34 -295
OT.............................. 0 -130
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 5 75
OT.......................... 5 75
===============================
Natural Resources:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 6,328 62,205
OT.............................. 7,149 65,337
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -900 -17,995
OT.............................. -632 -17,225
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 5,428 44,210
OT.......................... 6,517 48,112
===============================
Judiciary:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 19,850 102,560
OT.............................. 9,415 102,921
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -11,506 -47,461
OT.............................. -637 -45,809
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 8,344 55,099
OT.......................... 8,778 57,112
===============================
Transportation & Infrastructure:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 71,902 728,450
OT.............................. 16,959 193,263
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -78 -116,444
OT.............................. -47 -951
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 71,824 612,006
OT.......................... 16,912 192,312
===============================
Science, Space & Technology:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 101 1,010
OT.............................. 106 1,015
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 101 1,010
OT.......................... 106 1,015
===============================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 12.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE--Continued
[On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 0 0
OT.......................... 0 0
===============================
Veterans Affairs:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 2,951 93,459
OT.............................. 3,078 95,096
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 2,951 93,459
OT.......................... 3,078 95,096
===============================
Ways & Means:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 973,502 14,639,393
OT.............................. 972,842 14,632,462
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -22,567 -1,298,202
OT.............................. -21,667 -1,291,946
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 950,935 13,341,191
OT.......................... 951,175 13,340,516
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUTORY CONTROLS OVER THE BUDGET
----------
Since 1985, a series of statutory budget controls has been
superimposed on the congressional budget process through the
enactment of, and subsequent amendments to, the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA). This Act
has been added and changed a succession of times and generally
serves as the vehicle for statutory controls over the budget,
but not exclusively so.
BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (BBEDCA) initially was intended to reduce deficits by
establishing annual maximum deficit limits. These limits were
enforced through ``sequestration'' which involved automatic
across-the-board spending reductions required to be ordered by
the President if the deficit targets were missed. The orders
under the terms of BBDECA occur within 15 days after the end of
a session of Congress. Sequestration remains an enforcement
procedure for statutory budget controls through at least fiscal
year 2001.
BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA) significantly
revised BBEDCA (the BEA is included as Title XIII of Public Law
101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990). It
replaced the maximum spending limits originally in BBEDCA with
annual limits on discretionary spending and controls over
increases in direct spending or decreases in revenues, termed
``pay-as-you go (PAYGO).''
OBRA 1990, as amended, established separate limits on
appropriations for defense, international affairs, and domestic
discretionary appropriations through fiscal year 1993, and a
single limit on all appropriations for fiscal years 1994 and
1995.
Under PAYGO, if the cumulative effect of legislation
enacted through the end of a session of Congress increased the
deficit, the amount of that deficit increase for a fiscal year
following that session would cause a sequestration of spending
by that amount.
OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993)
extended a single discretionary limit through fiscal year 1998.
Any breach of the cap would cause a sequestration (again an
across-the-board cut in all nonexempt discretionary programs
under the cap). These spending limits were held harmless for
changes in inflation, emergencies, estimating differences, and
changes in concepts and definitions. OBRA 1993 also extended
the pay-as-you-go enforcement procedures for legislation
enacted through fiscal year 1998.
BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 1997) again revised
the level of discretionary spending limits and extended them
through fiscal year 2002. As amended by the OBRA 1993, these
controls would have expired at the end of fiscal year 1998. BBA
1997 modified the discretionary spending limits for fiscal year
1998 and extended through fiscal year 2002. Similarly, the
PAYGO requirements were extended through fiscal year 2002. BBA
1997 also made many technical changes in both the congressional
budget process and the sequestration procedures that enforce
the discretionary spending limits and PAYGO requirements.
The BBA established separate limits on defense and non-
defense discretionary spending for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
These limits were combined into a single limit on discretionary
spending in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Separate
discretionary spending limits were intended to prevent Congress
and the President from using savings in one category to offset
an increase in another.
BBA 1997 repealed automatic adjustments in the caps for
changes in inflation and estimating differences between OMB and
CBO on budget outlays. It retained adjustments for emergencies,
estimating differences in outlays, continuing disability
reviews and added adjustments for the International Monetary
Fund, international arrearages, and an Earned Income Tax Credit
compliance initiative.
These adjustments are made in the President's final
sequestration report issued fifteen days after the end of a
session of Congress.
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010
No further significant congressional action was taken on
re-establishing statutory controls on spending and revenue
until 2010, when on February 10 of that year, the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 was signed as part of Public Law 111-
139, which raised the statutory limit on the public debt.
It was similar to the expired pay-as-you-go law, and
included references to certain sections of the BBEDCA, but it
did not bring that law back into force. It did amend sections
of that Act such as the sequestrable base. It did not establish
new discretionary spending limits for any period of time.
BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011
Enacted on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011
(BCA) authorized an increase in the public debt limit. Added to
this increase were statutory controls on spending, primarily in
the form of making BBEDCA permanent in its entirety and re-
establishing the discretionary spending limits for fiscal years
2012 through 2021 in section 251(c) of that Act. These
discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2012 and 2013
were divided into security and non-security categories. The
remaining years were set as a single discretionary general
category.
These initial spending limits were replaced and their
definitions changed though, since the BCA also included
additional procedures that had the effect of altering the caps
as set out in section 251(c) of BBEDCA, in particular by
extending the security/non-security categories through the end
of the period.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the
discretionary spending caps of the BCA would reduce the
deficit, including savings from debt service, by $917 billion
over the 10 fiscal years covering 2012 through 2021.
The BCA also established a Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction that was tasked with reporting a bill to
reduce the federal deficit by an additional $1.5 trillion over
a 10-year period ending in fiscal year 2021. Legislation from
the Joint Committee would have been considered under procedures
limiting amendment and debate. Under the terms of the BCA, if
legislation from the Joint Committee reducing the deficit by at
least $1.2 trillion were not enacted, then a procedure would be
set in motion to reduce spending by adjusting the discretionary
caps downward and calculating an amount of reductions in direct
spending necessary to achieve the $1.2 trillion (or a portion
thereof were legislation from the Joint Committee achieving
some deficit reduction was enacted).
The Joint Committee was unable to report any proposal
reducing the deficit by any amount and no legislation to that
purpose was enacted by the required January 15, 2012 deadline.
On this date, not only did the Joint Committee cease to exist,
the automatic spending reduction process was triggered.
The process that began on January 15, 2012 had the
following ramifications: The statutory discretionary caps were
replaced by new caps with new definitions of security and
nonsecurity--now effectively defense and nondefense, though the
previous terms are still used. These categories have replaced
the discretionary general category through 2021.
The process has two components: sequestration and
discretionary spending limits reduction. In order to achieve
the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, spending reductions
will occur absent a change in law. OMB is charged with
calculating the amount in spending reduction required to
achieve the specified deficit reduction.
Since the Joint Committee didn't achieve any deficit
reduction, the calculation begins with a spending reduction of
the full $1.2 trillion from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal
year 2021. According to the BCA formula, that number is reduced
by 18 percent to account for the reduced cost of debt service
attributable to the lower level of spending. The remaining
amount is divided by nine to account for each of fiscal years
2013 through 2021. This amount is then divided by two so that
it is evenly distributed between reductions in defense and
nondefense accounts.
The spending reductions are further divided between direct
spending and discretionary spending within the defense and
nondefense accounts.
The implementation of the spending reductions is distinct
from the calculation of the amounts. Once the amount is
calculated, the BCA requires reductions through sequestration
and reductions to the revised discretionary spending limits.
The sequestration order affects both discretionary and
mandatory spending for fiscal year 2013. This means that
discretionary amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2013 are to
be sequestered by the calculated amount no matter how much is
appropriated--it is not sequestered as a function of the
discretionary spending limit for that fiscal year. In addition,
for all fiscal years 2013 through 2021, a direct spending
sequester of nonexempt accounts is ordered.
This is distinct from the spending reductions for the
discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2014 through
fiscal year 2021--these reductions occur through revising the
spending limits downward for each of those fiscal years.
AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 2012
As part of an agreement to make permanent most tax policies
first enacted in 2001 and 2003 but set to expire at the end of
2012, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) included
certain budget process provisions. ATRA reduced the BCA fiscal
year 2013 sequestration by $24 billion, brought the sequester
amount from $109.33 billion to $85.33 billion for that fiscal
year.
It postponed the BCA sequester (under section 251A of
BBEDCA) by two months, from January 2, 2013 to March 1, 2013.
It also postponed the BBEDCA sequester (a separate
sequestration under section 251(a) of BBEDCA which normally
would occur 15 days after the end of a session of Congress)
until March 27, 2013. This section 251(a) sequester enforces
the spending limit categories rather than the BCA which
required a sequester for fiscal year 2013 by a nominal amount--
and applied regardless of where spending is relative to the
spending limits).
It also reset the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 discretionary
spending limit categories, lowering the total by $4 billion and
$8 billion respectively.
The fiscal year 2013 initially established by the BCA (set
out in section 251A of BBEDCA) was ordered by the President, as
required by law, on March 1, 2013.
THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011 AND THE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS
The Budget Control Act (BCA) established caps on
discretionary spending that reduced budget authority by $840
billion and outlays by $756 billion for FY 2012-2021 according
to CBO. In addition, the BCA called for at least $1.2 trillion
in additional deficit reduction for this period to be
accomplished through legislation recommended by a Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction. When that committee was unable
to reach agreement on any such legislation, the BCA provided an
automatic enforcement procedure to ensure this deficit
reduction was achieved but did so in a way that focused on the
36 percent of the budget that is approved annually through the
appropriations process.
Under the FY 2013 sequester, for example, discretionary
spending bore 80 percent of the spending cuts and in FY 2014
discretionary spending is estimated to absorb 84 percent of the
automatic enforcement reductions. Given the projected 78
percent growth of mandatory spending programs by 2023, the
BCA's focus on discretionary spending is inadequate to
addressing the deficit and debt problems facing the nation.
Also, these automatic enforcement procedures achieve 50 percent
of the reductions from defense activities, when defense
represents less than 20 percent of total spending. Last year,
House Republicans passed the Sequester Replacement
Reconciliation Act that would have replaced the FY 2013
sequester with a much greater emphasis on permanent mandatory
spending savings. CBO estimated that these mandatory savings
were more than double the cost of replacing the sequester.
While the resolution assumes discretionary spending at the
post-sequester levels, section 409 provides the Chairman of the
Budget Committee authority to make changes to the allocations,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this budget
resolution to accommodate the enactment of an agreement between
the House, the Senate, and the President that accomplishes
permanent reforms of mandatory spending programs and provides
long-term deficit and debt reduction.
TABLE 13.--FISCAL YEAR 2014 DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Non-Defense Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Control Act (PL 112-25)... 556.0 510.0 1066.0
American Taxpayer Relief Act -4.0 -4.0 -8.0
(PL 112-240)\1\.............
--------------------------------------
Pre-Enforcement Procedure Cap.... 552.0 506.0 1058.0
Automatic Enforcement -54.6 -37.0 -91.6
Procedure\2\................
--------------------------------------
Post-Enforcement Procedure Cap... 497.4 469.0 966.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The American Taxpayer Relief Act delayed the FY 2013 sequester
required by the Budget Control Act from January 2, 2013 to March 1,
2013. The budgetary cost of this two-month delay was partially offset
by reducing the statutory caps on discretionary spending in FY 2014 by
$4 billion each for the defense and non-defense categories.
\2\The CBO has estimated that the automatic enforcement procedures under
the Budget Control Act will reduce the statutory caps on discretionary
spending by $91.6 billion in FY 2014. However, the definitive
determination of the amount of the cap reduction will be made by the
Office of Management and Budget and presented with the President's
budget. It is expected that the discretionary cap reduction will be
smaller than that estimated by CBO.
TABLE 14.--COMPOSITION OF SPENDING AND BCA AUTOMATIC ENFORCEMENT
[Percentage of totals, FY 2013-21]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Spending.............. 39% 61% 100%
BCA Automatic Enforcement...... 66% 34% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENFORCING BUDGETARY LEVELS
----------
THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The concurrent resolution on the budget is more than a
planning document. The allocations of spending authority and
the aggregate levels of both spending authority and revenues
are binding on the Congress when it considers subsequent
spending and tax legislation. Legislation breaching the levels
set forth in the budget resolution is subject to points of
order on the floor of the House of Representatives and the
Senate. The concurrent resolution is established pursuant to
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which includes various
requirements as to its content and enforcement. While a budget
resolution sets levels of spending, revenue, deficits and debt,
it also may include special procedures in order to enforce
Congressional budgetary decisions.
While legislation may be subject to a point of order,
budget-related enforcement is not self-enforcing. Any Member of
the House may raise a point of order against any tax or
spending bill that breeches the allocations and aggregate
spending levels established in the budget resolution. If the
point of order is sustained, the House is precluded from
further consideration of the measure.
Section 302(f)
Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
prohibits the consideration of legislation that exceeds a
committee's allocation of budget authority. For authorizing
committees this section applies to the first fiscal year and
the period of fiscal years covered by the budget resolution in
force. For appropriations bills, however, it applies only to
the first fiscal year.
Section 303
Section 303 prohibits the consideration of spending and
revenue legislation before the House has passed a concurrent
resolution on the budget for a fiscal year. Measures that cause
an increase or decrease in revenue, or cause an increase in
budget authority, in a fiscal year for which a budget
resolution has not been adopted violate section 303(a). Section
303(a) does not apply to budget authority and revenue
provisions first effective in a year following the first fiscal
year to which a budget resolution would apply, or to
appropriation bills after 15 May.
Section 311
Section 311 prohibits the consideration of legislation that
would cause a breach of the aggregate spending limits on budget
authority and outlays, or that would cause revenue levels to
fall below the revenue floor, established by the concurrent
resolution on the budget. If a measure would cause budget
authority or outlays to be greater than the ceiling established
for the first fiscal year of a budget resolution, a section 311
violation occurs. If a measure would cause revenue to be lower
than the revenue floor in the first fiscal year or the period
of years of the budget resolution, a section 311 violation
occurs. Section 311 does not apply to measures that provide
budget authority but do not breach a committee's 302(a)
allocations.
Section 314(f)
This section, established by the Budget Control Act of
2011, prohibits the consideration of any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause
the statutory spending category limits set out in section
251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (as adjusted by procedures set out in section 251A of
that Act) to be exceeded. This budget resolution includes
language that would prevent this section's application if the
appropriation measure is not in violation of the section 302(a)
allocation.
BUDGET-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE
In addition to enforcement controls in the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, as applied through the concurrent
resolution on the budget, there are also other controls that
found in the Rules of the House of Representatives and in the
Orders of the House.
Clause 7 of Rule XXI
This clause prohibits the consideration of a concurrent
resolution on the budget containing reconciliation directives
(section 310 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974) that would cause a net increase in direct
spending.
Clause 10 of Rule XXI
House Resolution 5 established in the Rules of the House of
Representatives a point of order against any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause a
net increase in direct spending. The rule, termed `Cut-as-you-
go,' prohibits the consideration of legislation that increases
direct spending over 5 years or 10 years, and requires spending
increases to be offset by spending decreases over those time
periods.
Clause 4 of Rule XXIX
This clause specifies that the Chair of the Committee on
the Budget is responsible for providing authoritative guidance
concerning the impact of a legislative propositions related to
the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending,
and new entitlement authority.
Section 3 of the Separate Orders of House Resolution 5 of the 113th
Congress
House Resolution 5 adopted the rules from the 112th
Congress and incorporated additional provisions related to the
budget process.
Section 3(d)(3) requires that each general appropriations
bill contain a ``spending reduction'' account, for which the
level provided is a recitation of the amount by which, through
the amendment process, the House has reduced spending in other
portions of the bill and indicated that such savings should be
counted toward spending reduction. It provides that any
amendment increasing spending relative to the underlying bill
must include an offset of an equal or greater value.
RECONCILIATION
----------
Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 641) sets out a special procedure which allows a
concurrent resolution on the budget to direct any Congressional
committee to produce legislation that changes budgetary levels.
In general, reconciliation instructions include a committee or
committees, a time period or periods over which budget
authority, revenue, the debt ceiling, or deficits should be
changed. It also includes a date certain by which those
committees should produce and vote on legislative language to
accomplish those changes. Rather than reporting the legislative
text, these committees submit it to the Committee on the Budget
which then binds them all together and may report them but may
not make substantive changes. If the reconciliation directive
only applies to a single committee then the text is not
submitted to the Budget Committee and is reported directly to
the House.
This Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year
2014, as reported by the Committee on the Budget, provides for
such a reconciliation bill. It instructs eight authorizing
committees to transmit changes in law necessary to achieve
certain direct spending and revenue levels provided for in the
budget resolution. They must submit legislative text and
associated material to the Committee on the Budget by date not
specified but assumed to be in 2013.
A committee receiving a reconciliation directive must
reduce the deficit in period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
A committee may reduce the deficit through net reductions in
spending or net increases in revenue, or a combination of the
two. The committees may achieve the deficit reduction specified
in any manner they wish for laws within their jurisdiction.
In general, when a committee receives a reconciliation
directive, it considers a bill to comply with the directive as
it would any other bill, but the legislative text, along with
related material, is submitted to the Committee on the Budget
instead of reported to the House. The Committee on the Budget
then binds all the submissions together, votes on the combined
measure, and reports it out of committee as a single bill. The
Committee on the Budget may not amend the submitted legislative
text during consideration in committee. It must report the
language without substantive revision.
A reconciliation bill is a privileged measure in the
Senate: As distinct from most Senate bills, it has a time limit
of twenty hours of debate and does not require the sixty-vote
supermajority to invoke ``cloture,'' a Senate procedure which
limits debate on legislation. Hence passage of a reconciliation
bill in the Senate only requires a simple majority.
In the Senate, as a limitation on the content of a
reconciliation bill, a provision that does not increase or
decrease spending (or revenue) is considered extraneous. If
found to be extraneous the provision violates section 313 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, commonly known as the
``Byrd Rule,'' so named after its author, the late Senator
Robert C. Byrd (WV). If the provision is found to violate the
Byrd Rule, it is removed from the bill or conference report
unless 60 Senators vote to waive it.
The committees receiving reconciliation instructions
pursuant to this concurrent resolution, and which must submit
legislative language and related material to the Committee on
the Budget, are as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, the
Committee on Judiciary, the Committee on Natural Resources, the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee
on Ways and Means.
ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
(Subject to a General Limit of $28,852,000,000)
Financial Services and General Government
Payment to Postal Service
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Employment and Training Administration
Education for the Disadvantaged
School Improvement Programs
Special Education
Career, Technical and Adult Education
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Tenant-based Rental Assistance
Project-based Rental Assistance
VETERANS ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
(Subject to a Separate Limit of $55,483,000,000)
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
VA Medical Services
VA Medical Support and Compliance
VA Medical Facilities
VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE
----------
Clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII requires each committee
report to accompany any bill or resolution of a public
character, ordered to include the total number of votes cast
for and against on each roll call vote, on a motion to report
and any amendments offered to the measure or matter, together
with the names of those voting for and against. Listed below
are the roll call votes taken in the Committee on the Budget on
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014.
On March 13, 2013, the Committee met in open session, a
quorum being present.
Mr. Price asked unanimous consent that the Chair be
authorized, consistent with clause 4 of House Rule XVI, to
declare a recess at any time during the Committee meeting.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
Chairman Ryan asked unanimous consent to dispense with the
first reading of the budget aggregates, function levels, and
other appropriate matter; that the aggregates, function totals,
and other appropriate matter be open for amendment; and that
amendments be considered as read.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent requests.
The committee adopted and ordered reported the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014. The Committee on
the Budget took the following votes:
1. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen,
Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries,
and Pocan expressing a sense of the House to replace the
sequester with revenue increases and spending reductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An amendment offered by Representatives Schwartz, Van
Hollen, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee,
Cicilline, Jeffries, Pocan, Cardenas, Blumenauer, and Schrader
to increase funding for transportation investment,
infrastructure, veterans programs and education, and to raise
revenues. The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating
tax deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules
for certain equipment, and raising taxes on individuals with
annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
270 by $7 billion in fiscal year 2014 and outlays by the
following amounts: $0.400 billion for fiscal year 2014, $2.050
billion for fiscal year 2015, $2.450 billion for fiscal year
2016, $1.280 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.675 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $0.010 billion for fiscal year 2019.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
370 by $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and outlays by the
following amounts: $0.208 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.131
billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.174 billion for fiscal year
2016, $0.189 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.140 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $0.068 billion for fiscal year 2019, $0.043
billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.029 billion for fiscal year
2021, $0.015 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.004 billion for
fiscal year 2023.
The amendment would increase outlays for Function 400 by
the following amounts: $19.920 billion for fiscal year 2014,
$16.210 billion for fiscal year 2015, $5.780 billion for fiscal
year 2016, $2.350 billion for fiscal year 2017, $1.680 billion
for fiscal year 2018, $1.350 billion for fiscal year 2019,
$0.600 billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.500 billion for fiscal
year 2021, $0.400 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.200 billion
for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment would increase outlays for Function 450 by
the following amounts: $0.350 billion for fiscal year 2014,
$4.800 billion for fiscal year 2015, $6.450 billion for fiscal
year 2016, $3.330 billion for fiscal year 2017, $2.270 billion
for fiscal year 2018, $1.200 billion for fiscal year 2019, $1
billion for fiscal year 2020, $1 billion for fiscal year 2021,
$1.250 billion for fiscal year 2022, $1.250 billion for fiscal
year 2023.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
500 by the following amounts: $2.866 billion for fiscal year
2014, $3.066 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.400 billion for
fiscal year 2016. The amendment would increase outlays for
Function 500 by the following amounts: $34.282 billion for
fiscal year 2014, $20.957 billion for fiscal year 2015, $10.248
billion for fiscal year 2016, $3.082 billion for fiscal year
2017, $0.612 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.020 billion for
fiscal year 2019.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
700 by $1 billion in fiscal year 2014. Outlays for Function 700
would increase by the following amounts: $0.100 billion for
fiscal year 2014 and $0.225 billion for each of the fiscal
years 2015 through 2018.
The amendment would increase outlays for Function 750 by
the following amounts: $1.500 billion for fiscal year 2014,
$1.500 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.500 for fiscal year
2016.
The amendment would also increase budget authority and
outlays for Function 800 by the following amounts: $0.872
billion for fiscal year 2014, $1.963 billion for fiscal year
2015, $3.157 billion for fiscal year 2016, $4.432 billion for
fiscal year 2017, $5.844 billion for fiscal year 2018, $7.387
billion for fiscal year 2019, $9.006 billion for fiscal year
2020, $10.684 billion for fiscal year 2021, $12.384 billion for
fiscal year 2022, $14.099 billion for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline,
Jeffries and Lujan Grisham expressing a sense of the House
relating to the distributional impact of tax reform.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham,
Van Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee,
Cicilline, Jeffries, and Pocan to increase Medicaid spending
and raise revenues. The amendment would increase revenue by
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $450,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays
for Function 550 by the following amounts: $40 billion for
fiscal year 2015, $50 billion for fiscal year 2016, $60 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $70 billion for fiscal year 2018, $90
billion for fiscal year 2019, $100 billion for fiscal year
2020, $120 billion for fiscal year 2021, $130 billion for
fiscal year 2022, $150 billion for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline,
Jeffries, Pocan, Blumenauer, and Schrader expressing a sense of
the House that certain provisions relating to pre-existing
health conditions and young adults of the Affordable Care Act
should not be repealed.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. An amendment offered by offered by Representatives
Castor, Van Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries, Pocan,
Lujan Grisham, and Cardenas to increase spending for schools
and raise revenues. The amendment would increase revenue by
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by
the following amounts: $23.139 billion for fiscal year 2014,
$14.348 billion for fiscal year 2015, $6.924 billion for fiscal
year 2016, $1.817 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.124 billion
for fiscal year 2018, $0.017 billion for fiscal year 2019.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van
Hollen, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries, Pocan, and
Lujan Grisham to increase spending on the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and continue the current
value of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit,
and the American Opportunity Tax Credit. The amendment would
increase revenue by eliminating tax deductions for oil
production and U.S. businesses with international operations,
changing the depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and
raising taxes on individuals with annual income greater than
$1,000,000.
Budget authority and outlays for Function 500 would be
increased by the following amounts: $5.097 billion for fiscal
year 2019, $4.991 billion for fiscal year 2020, $4.898 billion
for fiscal year 2021, $4.882 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$4.731 billion for fiscal year 2023.
Budget authority and outlays for Function 600 would be
increased by the following amounts: $0.600 billion for fiscal
year 2014, $13.100 billion for fiscal year 2015, $13.500
billion for fiscal year 2016, $13.800 billion for fiscal year
2017, $14.200 billion for fiscal year 2018, $30.100 billion for
fiscal year 2019, $30.600 billion for fiscal year 2020, $31
billion for fiscal year 2021, $31.6 billion for fiscal year
2022, $32.2 billion for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, Lee, Cicilline,
Jeffries, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, and Huffman expressing a sense
of the House relating to Medicare benefits for seniors and
persons with disabilities.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Van Hollen,
Moore, McDermott, Cicilline, Jeffries, Blumenauer, and Schrader
to reduce funding for Overseas Contingency Operations and to
increase funding for certain veterans and low income programs.
Budget authority would be reduced in Function 970 by the
following amounts: $23 billion for fiscal year 2014 and $35
billion for each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
Outlays in Function 970 would be reduced by the following
amounts: $10.952 billion for fiscal year 2014, $19.928 billion
for fiscal year 2015, $31.742 billion for fiscal year 2016,
$35.831 billion for fiscal year 2017, $36.579 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $37.150 billion for fiscal year 2019, $37.186
billion for fiscal year 2020, $37.466 billion for fiscal year
2021, $38.102 billion for fiscal year 2022, $37.694 billion for
fiscal year 2023.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
600 by the following amounts: $0.076 billion for fiscal year
2014, $0.078 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.079 billion for
fiscal year 2016, $0.081 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.083
billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.085 billion for fiscal year
2019, $0.087 billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.090 billion for
fiscal year 2021, $0.092 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.094
billion for fiscal year 2023.
Outlays would be increased for Function 600 by the
following amounts: $0.038 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.061
billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.070 billion for fiscal year
2016, $0.075 billion for fiscal year 2017, $0.080 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $0.082 billion for fiscal year 2019, $0.084
billion for fiscal year 2020, $0.086 billion for fiscal year
2021, $0.088 billion for fiscal year 2022, $0.090 billion for
fiscal year 2023.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
920 by the following amounts: $21.704 billion for fiscal year
2014, $27.262 billion for fiscal year 2015, $34.921 billion for
fiscal year 2016, $34.919 billion for fiscal year 2017, $34.917
billion for fiscal year 2018, $34.915 billion for fiscal year
2019, $34.913 billion for fiscal year 2020, $34.910 billion for
fiscal year 2021, $34.908 billion for fiscal year 2022, $34.906
billion for fiscal year 2023.
Outlays would be increased for Function 920 by the
following amounts: $10.913 billion for fiscal year 2014,
$19.865 billion for fiscal year 2015, $27.711 billion for
fiscal year 2016, $31.288 billion for fiscal year 2017, $33.305
billion for fiscal year 2018, $33.827 billion for fiscal year
2019, $34.166 billion for fiscal year 2020, $34.163 billion for
fiscal year 2021, $34.161 billion for fiscal year 2022, $34.159
billion for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.
Ms. Schwartz asked unanimous consent, after the closing of
the vote, that the record reflect that she would have voted aye
on the roll call tally #9 offered by Representative Lee.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. An amendment offered by Representatives Blumenauer, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Pocan,
and Schrader to raise revenues and to increase funding for
transportation investment and infrastructure. The amendment
would increase revenue by eliminating tax deductions for oil
production and U.S. businesses with international operations,
changing the depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and
raising taxes on individuals with annual income greater than
$1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
400 by the following amounts: $15.376 billion for fiscal year
2014, $63.735 billion for fiscal year 2015, $23.805 billion for
fiscal year 2016, $15.221 billion for fiscal year 2017, $39.500
billion for fiscal year 2018, $17.174 billion for fiscal year
2019, $38.618 billion for fiscal year 2020, $19.887 billion for
fiscal year 2021, $39.818 billion for fiscal year 2022, $16.681
billion for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment would increase outlays by the following
amounts: $1.981 billion for fiscal year 2014, $16.424 billion
for fiscal year 2015, $27.375 billion for fiscal year 2016,
$19.131 billion for fiscal year 2017, $22.632 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $27.740 billion for fiscal year 2019, $28.879
billion for fiscal year 2020, $31.494 billion for fiscal year
2021, $33.472 billion for fiscal year 2022, $35.124 billion for
fiscal year 2023.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. An amendment offered by Representatives Cicilline, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee,
Jeffries, and Huffman to increase spending for education and
raise revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
500 by the following amounts: $9.540 billion for fiscal year
2014, $6.930 billion for fiscal year 2015, $7.965 billion for
fiscal year 2016, $9.004 billion for fiscal year 2017, $9.084
billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.190 billion for fiscal year
2019, $9.315 billion for fiscal year 2020, $9.452 billion for
fiscal year 2021, $9.542 billion for fiscal year 2022, $9.658
billion for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by
the following amounts: $7.263 billion for fiscal year 2014,
$7.269 billion for fiscal year 2015, $7.587 billion for fiscal
year 2016, $8.356 billion for fiscal year 2017, $9.170 billion
for fiscal year 2018, $9.112 billion for fiscal year 2019,
$9.223 billion for fiscal year 2020, $9.351 billion for fiscal
year 2021, $9.475 billion for fiscal year 2022, $9.572 billion
for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. An amendment offered by Representatives Schwartz, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, and
Lujan Grisham to increase spending for health research and
reduce funding for Overseas Contingency Operations.
The amendment would decrease budget authority for Function
970 by $3 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would
decrease outlays for Function 970 by the following amounts:
$1.529 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.897 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $0.352 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.127 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $0.037 billion for fiscal year 2018.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
550 by $3 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would
increase outlays by the following amounts: $1.529 billion for
fiscal year 2014, $0.897 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.352
billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.127 billion for fiscal year
2017, $0.037 billion for fiscal year 2018.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. An amendment offered by Representatives Jeffries, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott,
Lee, Cicilline, Pocan, Cardenas, Blumenauer, and Schrader
relating to increasing spending on student loan subsidies and
raising revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
500 by $1.500 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would
increase outlays for Function 500 by the following amounts:
$1.855 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.435 billion for fiscal
year 2015.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van
Hollen, Moore, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, Jeffries, and
Blumenauer expressing a sense of the House on the importance of
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The amendment was not agreed to by a voice vote.
15. An amendment offered by Representatives Huffman, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Yarmuth, Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline,
Pocan, and Blumenauer to increase spending for renewable energy
and to raise revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
270 by $2.111 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would
increase outlays for Function 270 by the following amounts:
$1.061 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.599 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $0.235 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.077 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $0.094 billion for fiscal year 2018.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. An amendment offered by Representatives Cardenas, Van
Hollen, McDermott, Lee, Cicilline, and Jeffries to increase the
recommended levels of revenue for fiscal years 2014 through
2023. The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating tax
deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules
for certain equipment, and raising taxes on individuals with
annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The recommended levels of revenue would increase by the
following amounts: $12 billion for fiscal year 2014, $15
billion for fiscal year 2015, $18 billion for fiscal year 2016,
$25 billion for fiscal year 2017, $27 billion for fiscal year
2018, $30 billion for fiscal year 2019, $33 billion for fiscal
year 2020, $36 billion for fiscal year 2021, $39 billion for
fiscal year 2022, $43 billion for fiscal year 2023.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. An amendment offered by Representatives Schrader, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, McDermott, Lee, and Cicilline expressing a
sense of the House on achieving deficit reduction through a
combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. An amendment offered by Representatives Cicilline,
Schwartz, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, Pocan, and Schrader
expressing a sense of the House on the importance of Social
Security.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. An amendment offered by Representatives Cardenas,
McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, and Pocan expressing a sense of the
House on the importance of the Mortgage Interest Deduction.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Moore,
McDermott, Cicilline, and Jeffries expressing a sense of the
House on a National Strategy to Eradicate Poverty and Increase
Opportunity.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore,
McDermott, and Lee expressing a sense of the House on the
importance of child support enforcement.
The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
22. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham,
Moore, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, and Cardenas to increase
spending for certain Native American health programs and to
raise revenue. The amendment would increase revenue by
eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
550 by $0.22 billion for fiscal year 2014. The amendment would
increase outlays for Function 550 by the following amounts:
$0.111 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.062 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $0.025 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.008 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $0.009 billion for fiscal year 2018.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. An amendment offered by Representatives Schrader,
McDermott, Lee, Lujan Grisham, and Ribble relating to a
deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
24. Mr. Price made a motion that the Committee adopt the
aggregates, function totals, and other appropriate matter, with
any amendments.
The motion offered by Mr. Price was agreed to by voice
vote.
Chairman Ryan called up the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for fiscal year 2014 incorporating the aggregates,
function totals, and other appropriate matter as previously
agreed.
25. Mr. Price made a motion that the Committee order the
Concurrent Resolution reported with a favorable recommendation
and that the Concurrent Resolution do pass.
The motion offered by Mr. Price was agreed to by a roll
call vote of 22 ayes and 17 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 21--PASSAGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X SCHWARTZ X
(GA) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X YARMUTH X
(NJ) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X PASCRELL X
(CA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X MOORE X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X CASTOR X
K (CA) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X McDERMOTT X
(OK) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X LEE (CA) X
(TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X CICILLINE X
(WI) (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X JEFFRIES X
(TX) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X POCAN X
(IN) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X LUJAN X
(GA) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X HUFFMAN X
(TN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X CARDENAS X
(MS) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X BLUMENAUE X
(VA) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X SCHRADER X
(M0) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Price asked for unanimous consent that the Chair be
authorized to make a motion to go to conference pursuant to
clause 1 of House Rule XXII, the staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming corrections in the
resolution, and any committee amendments, and calculate any
remaining elements required in the resolution, prior to filing
the resolution.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent requests.
AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
----------
The Committee on the Budget of the House met on March 13,
2013 to consider the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2014. The Committee considered 23 amendments to the
budget resolution: Two amendments were adopted by voice vote,
one was defeated by voice vote, and 20 were defeated by roll-
call votes (see the section ``Votes of the Committee'' in this
report for a description of these votes). Of those 20
amendments, eleven raised taxes, two cut defense spending, and
the remaining amendments were ``sense of the House''
amendments. The following is a discussion of three of these
amendments.
An Amendment Expressing the Sense of the House Related to the
Distributional Impact of Tax Reform
Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin offered an amendment
expressing the sense of the House that the budget resolution
should not allow taxes to be raised on the middle class,
meaning any individual with adjusted gross income below
$200,000 or any married couple with adjusted gross income below
$250,000. It also effectively provided that current-law tax
rates not be reduced, by stipulating that the resolution
reflect the tax rates and income thresholds established in the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. The Committee defeated
this amendment. This amendment would have effectively put up a
roadblock to tax reform. Moreover, if adopted, it would have
blocked efforts to lower tax rates on middle-class taxpayers as
part of tax reform. The overwhelming consensus among economists
is that lowering marginal tax rates and removing distortions of
the tax code will increase incentives for work, saving, and
investment. As a result, tax reform that lowers tax rates will
boost jobs, wages, and economic growth. Tax reform also enjoys
strong bipartisan support. To that end, the budget resolution
calls for pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the tax base
while lowering tax rates.
An Amendment Related to Provisions in the
Affordable Care Act
During the markup process, an amendment was offered by
Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky regarding regulations
prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on
pre-existing conditions. In addition, the amendment provided
that other ``benefits'' of the President's health-care law
should not be repealed. This new health-care law raided the
Medicare trust fund and increased taxes to fund these new
benefits. In addition, the Committee believes the health-care
entitlement expansion and the creation of new health-care
entitlements will grow to greatly exceed the initial
projections of their costs. The amendment was defeated because
on net, the health-care law will increase costs and make it
harder for Americans to purchase coverage in the first place. A
better approach to ensure coverage for those with pre-existing
conditions is to repeal the President's broken health-care law
and replace it with commonsense reforms that lower costs,
protect patients, and ensure every family can find a health
plan that fits their needs.
An Amendment Expressing the Sense of the House on the Mortgage Interest
Deduction
Representative Tony Cardenas of California offered an
amendment expressing the sense of the House that it would
reject any reduction in the mortgage-interest deduction for the
middle class. It would not allow higher taxes (in the form of a
reduction in the mortgage-interest deduction) on middle-class
taxpayers with adjusted gross income below $200,000 ($250,000
for married couples).
The Committee defeated this amendment. The Committee
supports homeownership. It provides numerous benefits to
Americans. However, this amendment would effectively preclude
Congress from examining the home-mortgage-interest deduction as
part of tax reform. The budget resolution calls for pro-growth
tax reform with lower rates--including lower tax rates for
homeowners--and a broader tax base. The Ways and Means
Committee, which has jurisdiction on this matter, will be
drafting the actual tax-reform legislation and will be deciding
the details of how to broaden the tax base (i.e., which tax
preferences may be curbed or eliminated) as it works toward
this goal. Tax preferences sum to over $1 trillion annually.
The mortgage-interest deduction is the second largest in
the tax code, amounting to roughly $90 billion in foregone tax
revenue annually. At this point, it is unhelpful to the tax-
reform process to label ``sacred cows'' in the tax code or to
take certain proposals off the table. The amendment would
prevent policymakers from imposing any limits on the mortgage-
interest deduction for a large segment of taxpayers. For
instance, in practice it would preserve a situation in which a
married couple earning $200,000 could deduct their mortgage
interest on mortgage debt of as much as $1 million on a second
home.
In addition, under current law, there is no restriction to
increasing home-mortgage debt to finance other activities, such
as purchasing a car or paying for a vacation, which have
nothing to do with owning a home. Taxpayers who do not own a
home cannot deduct the interest expense for these activities.
Before the financial crisis, as housing prices increased, some
refinanced their mortgages to take equity out of their homes to
finance other purchases and expenses that had nothing to do
with owning a home. In addition, under current law, the
mortgage for purchasing a yacht is deductible, as long as the
yacht has sleeping quarters, a kitchen, and a toilet.
Congress may conclude to preserve the current mortgage-
interest deduction, but that should be part of a deliberation
of the broader benefits of tax reform.
OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
----------
Committee on the Budget Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to contain
oversight findings and recommendations pursuant to clause
2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee on the Budget has no findings
to report at the present time.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides that committee reports must contain
the statement required by Section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This
report does not contain such a statement because as a
concurrent resolution setting forth a blueprint for the
Congressional budget, the budget resolution does not provide
new budget authority, new entitlement authority, or change
revenues.
General Performance Goals and Objectives
Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to contain a
statement of general performance goals and objectives,
including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the
measure authorizes funding. The Committee on the Budget has no
such goals and objectives to report at this time.
Views of Committee Members
Clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee to afford a 2-day
opportunity for members of the committee to file minority,
additional, dissenting, or supplemental views and to include
the views in its report. The following views were submitted:
MINORITY VIEWS
----------
The Republican Budget: Protecting Special Interests at the Expense of
Jobs, Key Investments, and Seniors
This is an important moment for our country. Thanks to the
ingenuity and resilience of the American people, and the
emergency actions taken by the President and the Congress four
years ago, the country is continuing to recover from the worst
recession since the Great Depression. Momentum in the job
market continues to grow, but we still have a long way to go to
help put people back to work, accelerate economic growth, and
boost small business hiring. We can and we must steadily reduce
our deficits and reduce and stabilize the debt, but we should
do so in a way that immediately reduces the jobs deficit,
rather than immediately making that job deficit worse.
Unfortunately, this Republican budget fails that simple
test.
The non-partisan, independent Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) has shown that the approach taken in this budget will
result in 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of this year
alone. At a time that we should be doing everything possible to
grow the economy, the CBO has projected that this kind of plan
will cut economic growth by nearly one-third this year. An
analysis by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that this
budget will cost us 2 million jobs next year.
This issue is not whether we should steadily reduce our
long-term deficits, but how we do it. Democrats believe that
our budgets should be blueprints for economic growth that lead
to greater upward mobility, rising middle class wages, and
shared prosperity. We believe we should share responsibility
for reducing the deficit--rather than providing tax breaks for
the very wealthy while balancing the budget on the backs of our
middle class, our kids' education and by violating our
commitments to seniors.
This Republican budget once again takes an ideological,
uncompromising approach to addressing our budget challenge.
Last year we were told the presidential election was going to
give the American people the opportunity to choose between two
fundamentally different approaches to this challenge. They
voted and they chose to reject the lopsided approach reflected
in this budget.
The American people rejected the idea of giving additional
tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of middle
class taxpayers, at the expense of important commitments we
have made to our seniors, and at the expense of vital
investments in our kids' education, in breakthrough scientific
research, and in our infrastructure that provides the
hardwiring for our economy--investments that have helped make
us the world's economic powerhouse.
Let's address these one at a time.
Simple math shows that this budget will finance large tax
cuts for the wealthiest by raising the tax burden on middle
class tax payers. The budget calls for dropping the top tax
rate from 39 percent to 25 percent--cutting the tax rate for
millionaires by over one-third--while holding overall revenues
constant. Just last fall, the Tax Policy Center analyzed a far
more modest plan put forward by Mitt Romney to reduce the top
rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and showed that it would
inevitably raise the income tax burden on individuals making
under $200,000 a year. This budget's proposal, which provides
even bigger tax cuts to millionaires, will raise the tax burden
on middle incomes families by an average of $2,000. At the same
time, it does not close one single special interest tax
loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit--not one dime
from ending the special breaks for corporate jets, big oil
companies, or hedge fund managers.
While providing a tax windfall to the very wealthy, this
proposal absolutely guts vital investments that are essential
to shared prosperity, upward mobility, and rising middle class
wages. It protects Pentagon spending, but it more than doubles
the already deep sequester cuts to non-defense discretionary
spending--the category of funds that we use to support our
kids' education and boost scientific research into new
discoveries that help cure diseases and fuel innovative
technologies. At a time when our national infrastructure is in
desperate need of modernization, this budget will weaken the
backbone of the American economy. It shortchanges our future
and is a recipe for national decline.
The plan violates our commitments to our senior citizens in
a number of ways. It reopens the Medicare prescription drug
donut hole, immediately beginning to pile large additional
bills onto seniors with high prescription drug costs. It takes
a wrecking ball to Medicaid, slashing it by $810 billion over
ten years. Remember, two-thirds of these funds are used to help
seniors and individuals with disabilities. Finally, for
everyone under 55 who has been paying all their life for
Medicare insurance, they will now receive a voucher that
declines in value relative to rising health care costs--leaving
them to eat the difference. If this is such a good deal for
seniors, one has to wonder why so many people in the Republican
caucus opposed the idea of moving the effective date forward by
even one year.
Finally, let's look at how this budget hits the political
target of balance in ten years. First, it includes all the
revenues generated by the new higher tax rates on individuals
with taxable incomes over $400,000 a year--a measure that was
opposed by the overwhelming majority of the House Republicans.
It is ironic that, after hearing for so long that new revenues
could not meaningfully contribute to reducing our deficit, this
budget would not balance without them.
Even more interesting is that this budget would not balance
without Obamacare. It is simply a hoax to say this budget both
balances in ten years and repeals Obamacare. This budget does
eliminate the important benefits and patient protections from
Obamacare. It will eliminate provisions that prohibit insurance
companies from denying insurance coverage based on pre-existing
conditions, allow young adults to stay on their parents'
insurance until they're 26 years old, and provide tax credits
to small businesses to help them afford health insurance for
their employees. The dirty little secret, however, is that
while this budget eliminates those important benefits of
Obamacare, it keeps the rest; it keep all the parts that CBO
showed helped reduce the deficit.
Let's look of the $716 billion in Medicare savings that we
achieved by ending overpayments to the private insurances
companies and by modernizing the system without reducing
benefits. We were told last fall that those savings would
result in hospitals shutting down and a whole parade of other
horrible consequences. Those scare tactics were not true then,
and they are not true today. That's why all those savings are
included in this budget. Remember all the tax revenues in
Obamacare, those on higher income individuals, those on
industries that will benefit from the fact that Obamacare will
expand coverage, and those penalties from people who try to
freeload on the system? All those taxes and revenues are
included in this Republican budget, too.
In fact, the dirty little secret is that this budget would
not balance if not for the Medicare savings and all the
revenues from Obamacare. It would fall at least $400 billion
short in the tenth year. No one can say with a straight face
that they support this budget and support repealing Obamacare.
You cannot have it both ways, because if you repeal all of
Obamacare this budget is totally out of balance.
There is a very serious consequence of trying to have it
both ways with Obamacare in this budget. By eliminating the
Obamacare benefits while retaining the savings and the revenue,
you will severely undermine our health care system. Many
hospitals and other providers will go belly up. That is because
your budget reduces reimbursements to these providers while
also eliminating the provisions of Obamacare that provide them
with 27 million more insured patients who will be able to pay
for care. That is a formula for chaos in the health care
system.
The election is over. The American people rejected the
uncompromising approach taken in this budget. House Democrats
will present a budget plan on the House floor that takes a
balanced approach to the nation's budget challenges. It is time
to bridge our differences, and to end the swings from one
manufactured budget crisis to another. As we move through the
budget process over the next few months, Congress must be
willing to make the hard choices to reach a balanced agreement
that is good for our country--one that accelerates the recovery
while laying the foundation for strong economic growth, rising
wages, and shared prosperity.
Chris Van Hollen.
Allyson Y. Schwartz.
John A. Yarmuth.
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Tim Ryan.
Gwen Moore.
Kathy Castor.
Jim McDermott.
Barbara Lee.
David N. Cicilline.
Hakeem S. Jeffries.
Mark Pocan.
Michelle Lujan Grisham.
Jared Huffman.
Tony Cardenas.
Earl Blumenauer.
Kurt Schrader.
Union Calendar No. 10
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 25
[Report No. 113-17]
Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal
year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2015 through 2023.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014.
(a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that
this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal
year 2014 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2015 through 2023.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2014.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION
Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, AND 2050
Sec. 301. Long-term budgeting.
TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS
Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reform of the 2010 health
care laws.
Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare
provisions of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate
of the Medicare program.
Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 406. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 407. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 408. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 409. Implementation of a deficit and long-term debt reduction
agreement.
TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING
Sec. 501. Direct spending.
TITLE VI--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 601. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 602. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 603. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate
budgetary levels.
Sec. 604. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 605. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 606. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 607. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 608. Transfers from the general fund of the treasury to the highway
trust fund that increase public indebtedness.
Sec. 609. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/global
war on terrorism.
Sec. 610. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
TITLE VII--POLICY STATEMENTS
Sec. 701. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 702. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 703. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 704. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 705. Policy statement on higher education affordability.
Sec. 706. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the cancellation
of unobligated balances.
Sec. 707. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer
dollars.
Sec. 708. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction of
unnecessary and wasteful spending.
Sec. 709. Policy statement on unauthorized spending.
TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Sense of the House on the importance of child support
enforcement.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2014 through 2023:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the
enforcement of this concurrent resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal
revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $2,270,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,606,592,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,778,891,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,903,673,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,028,951,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,149,236,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,284,610,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,457,009,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,650,699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,832,145,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels
of Federal revenues should be changed are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $0.
Fiscal year 2015: $0.
Fiscal year 2016: $0.
Fiscal year 2017: $0.
Fiscal year 2018: $0.
Fiscal year 2019: $0.
Fiscal year 2020: $0.
Fiscal year 2021: $0.
Fiscal year 2022: $0.
Fiscal year 2023: $0.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the
enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the
appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $2,769,406,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,681,581,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,857,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,988,083,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,104,777,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,281,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,414,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,540,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,681,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,768,151,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this concurrent resolution, the appropriate levels
of total budget outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $2,815,079,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,736,849,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,850,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,958,619,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,079,296,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,231,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,374,336,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,495,489,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,667,532,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,722,071,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the
enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the amounts
of the deficits (on-budget) are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: -$544,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$130,257,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$71,544,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$54,947,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$50,345,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$82,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$89,726,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$38,480,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$16,833,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $110,073,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of
the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $17,776,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,086,450,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $18,343,824,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $18,635,129,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $18,938,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $19,267,212,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $19,608,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $19,900,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $20,162,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $20,319,503,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels
of debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2014: $12,849,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,069,788,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $13,225,569,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $13,362,146,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $13,485,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $13,648,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $13,836,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021; $13,992,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $14,154,363,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $14,210,984,000,000.
SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2014 through 2023 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$560,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $579,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$574,359,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $563,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$585,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,288,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$598,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $575,457,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$612,125,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $582,678,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$625,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $600,508,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$639,780,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $614,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$654,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $628,265,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$671,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $649,221,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$688,640,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $660,461,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$41,010,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$39,357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,355,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,019,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$41,343,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,821,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$42,342,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$43,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,248,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,366,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,898,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$46,240,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,208,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$47,304,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,030,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$27,733,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,811,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$28,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,193,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$28,994,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,641,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,677,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,251,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$30,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,088,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,798,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,275,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$32,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,886,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,244,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,609,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,991,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,344,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -
$1,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,024,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,433,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $984,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,570,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$2,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$2,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,039,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$2,105,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,989,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -
$12,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$147,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$37,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,169,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$36,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,860,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$37,295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,120,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$39,530,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,167,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$39,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,330,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$39,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,382,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$21,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,377,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$16,737,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$21,254,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,827,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,344,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,856,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$18,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,238,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,087,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,380,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,856,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,736,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$20,335,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,859,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$2,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$9,000,000,000..
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -
$7,818,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$19,413,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -
$7,398,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$21,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -
$6,328,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$22,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -
$2,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$20,314,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -
$866,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$23,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -
$579,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$22,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -
$295,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$17,517,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -
$1,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$19,406,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -
$1,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$20,654,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$87,056,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,142,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$81,453,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $74,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$91,498,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,791,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$68,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,548,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$92,602,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$72,693,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,625,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$92,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,244,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$74,694,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$99,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,906,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$8,533,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,669,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$8,401,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$8,341,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$8,442,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$8,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,925,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$8,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$8,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,418,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$9,172,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$9,424,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,209,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$9,641,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,271,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services (500):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$56,440,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$73,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,042,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$85,577,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$95,462,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,615,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$100,910,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $99,755,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$95,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $95,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$97,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $97,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$98,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $98,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$99,965,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$101,606,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $101,780,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$363,762,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $378,695,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$358,156,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $353,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$359,280,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,833,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$375,308,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $375,956,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$387,073,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $386,264,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$393,079,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $392,141,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$422,229,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $410,876,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$420,834,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $419,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$441,207,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,353,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$456,935,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $455,134,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$515,944,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $515,713,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$534,494,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $534,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$581,788,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $581,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$597,570,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $597,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$621,384,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $621,480,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$679,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $679,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$723,313,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $723,481,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$770,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $771,261,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$845,828,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $843,504,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$875,417,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $874,988,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$509,418,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $508,082,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$480,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $476,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$487,623,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$484,222,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $479,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$484,653,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $475,612,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$495,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $490,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$501,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $496,983,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$505,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $501,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$515,637,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $516,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$510,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,354,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$27,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$30,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$36,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,005,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$43,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,421,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$46,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,954,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$50,474,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,474,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$54,235,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$58,441,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$145,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$149,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $149,313,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$162,051,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,441,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$160,947,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $160,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$159,423,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $158,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$171,032,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $170,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$175,674,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $174,791,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$179,585,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $178,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$191,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $190,344,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$187,945,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $186,882,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$51,933,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$53,116,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,918,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$56,644,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,745,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$56,712,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,949,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$58,586,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,859,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$60,495,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$62,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$64,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,950,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$70,150,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,561,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$72,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $72,195,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,225,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$21,922,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,559,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$24,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,158,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$25,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,803,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$26,293,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$27,178,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,566,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$27,821,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,219,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$28,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,116,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$341,099,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $341,099,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$367,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $367,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$405,960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $405,960,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$476,448,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $476,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$555,772,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $555,772,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$613,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $613,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$661,810,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $661,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$694,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $694,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$723,923,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $723,923,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$745,963,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $745,963,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -
$59,061,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$44,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -
$58,840,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -
$65,587,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -
$71,859,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$65,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -
$77,299,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -
$82,155,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$76,769,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -
$85,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$81,785,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -
$89,377,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$85,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -
$88,897,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$85,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -
$92,469,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$89,323,000,000.
(20) Government-wide savings (930):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -
$9,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,660,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -
$21,577,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$9,971,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -
$17,617,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$8,873,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -
$13,371,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,739,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -
$11,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -
$9,584,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -
$8,457,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,740,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -
$7,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,666,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -
$21,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,703,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -
$35,807,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$13,555,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -
$75,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -
$80,864,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -
$86,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -
$90,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$90,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -
$91,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$91,645,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -
$99,220,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$99,220,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -
$101,316,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$101,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -
$106,332,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$106,332,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -
$109,276,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$109,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, -
$115,049,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$115,049,000,000.
(22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism (970):
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$93,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,621,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,851,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,948,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,789,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,451,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,570,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,431,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,466,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,694,000,000.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION
SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--The House committees
named in subsection (b) shall submit, not later than ______,
2013, recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives. After receiving those
recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without substantive revision.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on
Agriculture shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at
least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2013 through 2023.
(2) Committee on education and the workforce.--The
Committee on Education and the Workforce shall submit
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
reduce the deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(3) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(4) Committee on financial services.--The Committee
on Financial Services shall submit changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
deficit by at least $1,000,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2023.
(5) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at
least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2013 through 2023.
(6) Committee on natural resources.--The Committee on
Natural Resources shall submit changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at
least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2013 through 2023.
(7) Committee on oversight and government reform.--
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall
submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the deficit by at least
$1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2013
through 2023.
(8) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on
Ways and Means shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by at
least $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2013 through 2023.
TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, AND 2050
SEC. 301. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.
The following are the recommended revenue, spending, and
deficit levels for each of fiscal years 2030, 2040, and 2050 as
a percent of the gross domestic product of the United States:
(1) Federal revenues.--The appropriate levels of
Federal revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2030: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 19.1 percent.
(2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total
budget outlays are not to exceed:
Fiscal year 2030: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 19.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 19.1 percent.
(3) Deficits.--The appropriate levels of deficits are
not to exceed:
Fiscal year 2030: 0 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 0 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 0 percent.
TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS
SEC. 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that only consists of a full repeal
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health
care-related provisions of the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010.
SEC. 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REFORM OF THE 2010
HEALTH CARE LAWS.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that reforms or replaces the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not
increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014
through 2023.
SEC. 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE MEDICARE
PROVISIONS OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that repeals all or part of the
decreases in Medicare spending included in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not
increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014
through 2023.
SEC. 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE
OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that includes provisions amending or
superseding the system for updating payments under section 1848
of the Social Security Act, if such measure would not increase
the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
SEC. 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE TAX CODE.
In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a
bill or joint resolution that reforms the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise
the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in
this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any
such bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, if such measure would not increase
the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
SEC. 406. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE AGREEMENTS.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on
Ways and Means, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that implements a trade agreement, but only if such
measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal
years 2014 through 2023.
SEC. 407. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on
Ways and Means, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that decreases revenue, but only if such measure would
not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2014
through 2023.
SEC. 408. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that makes changes to or provides
for the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393)
by the amounts provided by that legislation for those purposes,
if such legislation requires sustained yield timber harvests
obviating the need for funding under P.L. 106-393 in the future
and would not increase the deficit or direct spending for
fiscal year 2014, the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2018,
or the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.
SEC. 409. IMPLEMENTATION OF A DEFICIT AND LONG-TERM DEBT REDUCTION
AGREEMENT.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution to accommodate the
enactment of a deficit and long-term debt reduction agreement
if it includes permanent spending reductions and reforms to
direct spending programs.
TITLE V--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING
SEC. 501. DIRECT SPENDING.
(a) Means-tested Direct Spending.--
(1) For means-tested direct spending, the average
rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the
10-year period preceding fiscal year 2014 is 6.7
percent.
(2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated
average rate of growth in the total level of outlays
during the 10-year period beginning with fiscal year
2014 is 6.2 percent under current law.
(3) The following reforms are proposed in this
concurrent resolution for means-tested direct spending:
(A) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a
Democratic president reformed welfare by
limiting the duration of benefits, giving
States more control over the program, and
helping recipients find work. In the five years
following passage, child-poverty rates fell,
welfare caseloads fell, and workers' wages
increased. This budget applies the lessons of
welfare reform to both the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid.
(B) For Medicaid, this budget converts the
Federal share of Medicaid spending into a
flexible State allotment tailored to meet each
State's needs, indexed for inflation and
population growth. Such a reform would end the
misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has
tied the hands of State governments. Instead,
each State would have the freedom and
flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that
fits the needs of its unique population.
Moreover, this budget repeals the Medicaid
expansions in the President's health care law,
relieving State governments of its crippling
one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates.
(C) For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, this budget converts the program into
a flexible State allotment tailored to meet
each State's needs, increases in the Department
of Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan index and
beneficiary growth. Such a reform would provide
incentives for States to ensure dollars will go
towards those who need them most. Additionally,
it requires that more stringent work
requirements and time limits apply under the
program.
(b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
(1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the average
rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the
10-year period preceding fiscal year 2014 is 5.9
percent.
(2) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the
estimated average rate of growth in the total level of
outlays during the 10-year period beginning with fiscal
year 2014 is 5.3 percent under current law.
(3) The following reforms are proposed in this
concurrent resolution for nonmeans-tested direct
spending:
(A) For Medicare, this budget advances
policies to put seniors, not the Federal
Government, in control of their health care
decisions. Those in or near retirement will see
no changes, while future retirees would be
given a choice of private plans competing
alongside the traditional fee-for-service
Medicare program. Medicare would provide a
premium-support payment either to pay for or
offset the premium of the plan chosen by the
senior, depending on the plan's cost. The
Medicare premium-support payment would be
adjusted so that the sick would receive higher
payments if their conditions worsened; lower-
income seniors would receive additional
assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs;
and wealthier seniors would assume
responsibility for a greater share of their
premiums. Putting seniors in charge of how
their health care dollars are spent will force
providers to compete against each other on
price and quality. This market competition will
act as a real check on widespread waste and
skyrocketing health care costs.
(B) In keeping with a recommendation from the
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility
and Reform, this budget calls for Federal
employees--including Members of Congress and
congressional staff--to make greater
contributions toward their own retirement.
TITLE VI--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 601. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform
Transparency Act of 2009 provides advance
appropriations for the following veteran medical care
accounts: Medical Services, Medical Support and
Compliance, and Medical Facilities.
(2) The President has yet to submit a budget request
as required under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, including the request for the Department
of Veterans Affairs, for fiscal year 2014, hence the
request for veteran medical care advance appropriations
for fiscal year 2015 is unavailable as of the writing
of this concurrent resolution.
(3) This concurrent resolution reflects the most up-
to-date estimate on veterans' health care needs
included in the President's fiscal year 2013 request
for fiscal year 2015.
(b) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in
subsection (c), any bill or joint resolution, or amendment
thereto or conference report thereon, making a general
appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for
advance appropriations.
(c) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided for
programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to in
subsection (d)(1) or identified in the report to accompany this
concurrent resolution or the joint explanatory statement of
managers to accompany this concurrent resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
(d) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2015, the aggregate level
of advance appropriations shall not exceed--
(1) $55,483,000,000 for the following programs in the
Department of Veterans Affairs--
(A) Medical Services;
(B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
(C) Medical Facilities accounts of the
Veterans Health Administration; and
(2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all
programs identified pursuant to subsection (c).
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, making general appropriations or any
new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint
resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year
2015.
SEC. 602. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.
Upon the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the chair of
the Committee on the Budget may adjust any allocations,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this concurrent
resolution accordingly.
SEC. 603. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS, AND APPROPRIATE
BUDGETARY LEVELS.
(a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending
Levels.--If a committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations) reports a bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, providing for a
decrease in direct spending (budget authority and outlays
flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year and also provides for an
authorization of appropriations for the same purpose, upon the
enactment of such measure, the chair of the Committee on the
Budget may decrease the allocation to such committee and
increase the allocation of discretionary spending (budget
authority and outlays flowing therefrom) to the Committee on
Appropriations for fiscal year 2014 by an amount equal to the
new budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) provided
for in a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for the
same purpose.
(b) Adjustments to Implement Discretionary Spending Caps and
to Fund Veterans' Programs and Overseas Contingency Operations/
Global War on Terrorism.--
(1) Findings.--(A) The President has not submitted a
budget for fiscal year 2014 as required pursuant to
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, by the
date set forth in that section.
(B) In missing the statutory date by which the budget
must be submitted, this will be the fourth time in five
years the President has not complied with that
deadline.
(C) This concurrent resolution reflects the levels of
funding for veterans' medical programs as set forth in
the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
(2) President's budget submission.--In order to take
into account any new information included in the budget
submission by the President for fiscal year 2014, the
chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
budgetary levels for veterans' programs, Overseas
Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism, or the
302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations
set forth in the report of this concurrent resolution
to conform with section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted
by section 251A of such Act).
(3) Revised congressional budget office baseline.--
The chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
budgetary levels to reflect changes resulting from
technical and economic assumptions in the most recent
baseline published by the Congressional Budget Office.
(c) Determinations.--For the purpose of enforcing this
concurrent resolution on the budget in the House, the
allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority,
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues,
deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2014 and the period of
fiscal years 2014 through fiscal year 2023 shall be determined
on the basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on
the Budget and such chair may adjust such applicable levels of
this concurrent resolution.
SEC. 604. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.
(a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to
consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee
(other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment
thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of
such measure have the net effect of increasing direct spending
in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described in
subsection (b).
(b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of
this section are any of the four consecutive ten fiscal-year
periods beginning with fiscal year 2024.
SEC. 605. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1989, the report accompanying this
concurrent resolution on the budget or the joint explanatory
statement accompanying the conference report on any concurrent
resolution on the budget shall include in its allocation under
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the
Committee on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary
administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration
and the United States Postal Service.
(b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f)
and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of
the level of total new budget authority and total outlays
provided by a measure shall include any off-budget
discretionary amounts.
(c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget
may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels for legislation reported by the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform that reforms the Federal retirement
system, if such adjustments do not cause a net increase in the
deficit for fiscal year 2014 and the period of fiscal years
2014 through 2023.
SEC. 606. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND
AGGREGATES.
(a) Application.--Any adjustments of the allocations,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels made pursuant to this
concurrent resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure;
and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon
as practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in
this concurrent resolution.
(c) Budget Compliance.--(1) The consideration of any bill or
joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget
makes adjustments or revisions in the allocations, aggregates,
and other appropriate levels of this concurrent resolution
shall not be subject to the points of order set forth in clause
10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or
section 604.
(2) Section 314(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
shall not apply in the House of Representatives to any bill,
joint resolution, or amendment that provides new budget
authority for a fiscal year or to any conference report on any
such bill or resolution, if--
(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution;
(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the
form recommended in that conference report;
would not cause the appropriate allocation of new budget
authority made pursuant to section 302(a) of such Act for that
fiscal year to be exceeded or the sum of the limits on the
security and non-security category in section 251A of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act as reduced
pursuant to such section.
SEC. 607. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Costs of Federal housing loans and loan
guarantees are treated unequally in the budget. The
Congressional Budget Office uses fair-value accounting
to measure the costs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but
determines the cost of other Federal housing programs
on the basis of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990
(``FCRA'').
(2) The fair-value accounting method uses discount
rates which incorporate the risk inherent to the type
of liability being estimated in addition to Treasury
discount rates of the proper maturity length. In
contrast, cash-basis accounting solely uses the
discount rates of the Treasury, failing to incorporate
risks such as prepayment and default risk.
(3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that
the $635 billion of loans and loan guarantees issued in
2013 alone would generate budgetary savings of $45
billion over their lifetime using FCRA accounting.
However, these same loans and loan guarantees would
have a lifetime cost of $11 billion under fair-value
methodology.
(4) The majority of loans and guarantees issued in
2013 would show deficit reduction of $9.1 billion under
FCRA methodology, but would increase the deficit by
$4.7 billion using fair-value accounting.
(b) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for
a measure under the terms of title V of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, ``credit reform'', as a supplement to such
estimate shall, to the extent practicable, also provide an
estimate of the current actual or estimated market values
representing the ``fair value'' of assets and liabilities
affected by such measure.
(c) Fair Value Estimates for Housing Programs.--Whenever the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office prepares an
estimate pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 of the costs which would be incurred in carrying
out any bill or joint resolution and if the Director determines
that such bill or joint resolution has a cost related to a
housing or residential mortgage program under the FCRA, then
the Director shall also provide an estimate of the current
actual or estimated market values representing the ``fair
value'' of assets and liabilities affected by the provisions of
such bill or joint resolution that result in such cost.
(d) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (b) or (c),
the chair of the Committee on the Budget may use such estimate
to determine compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and other budgetary enforcement controls.
SEC. 608. TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF THE TREASURY TO THE
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC
INDEBTEDNESS.
For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or
the rules or orders of the House of Representatives, a bill or
joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that transfers funds from the general fund of the
Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund shall be counted as new
budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the
transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs.
SEC. 609. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.
(a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas
contingency operations/global war on terrorism. For purposes of
enforcing such separate allocation under section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal year'' and
the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be deemed to refer to
fiscal year 2014. Such separate allocation shall be the
exclusive allocation for overseas contingency operations/global
war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such Act. Section
302(c) of such Act shall not apply to such separate allocation.
The Committee on Appropriations may provide suballocations of
such separate allocation under section 302(b) of such Act.
Spending that counts toward the allocation established by this
section shall be designated pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
(b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection (a)
for fiscal year 2014, no adjustment shall be made under section
314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any
adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
SEC. 610. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
The House adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives and as such they shall be
considered as part of the rules of the House of
Representatives, and these rules shall supersede other
rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent
with other such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right
of the House of Representatives to change those rules
at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent
as in the case of any other rule of the House of
Representatives.
TITLE VII--POLICY STATEMENTS
SEC. 701. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Although the U.S. economy technically emerged
from recession roughly four years ago, the recovery has
felt more like a malaise than a rebound with the
unemployment rate still elevated and real economic
growth essentially flat in the final quarter of 2012.
(2) The enormous build-up of Government debt in the
past four years has worsened the already unsustainable
course of Federal finances and is an increasing drag on
the U.S. economy.
(3) During the recession and early stages of
recovery, the Government took a variety of measures to
try to boost economic activity. Despite the fact that
these stimulus measures added over $1 trillion to the
debt, the economy continues to perform at a sub-par
trend.
(4) Investors and businesses make decisions on a
forward-looking basis. They know that today's large
debt levels are simply tomorrow's tax hikes, interest
rate increases, or inflation - and they act
accordingly. It is this debt overhang, and the
uncertainty it generates, that is weighing on U.S.
growth, investment, and job creation.
(5) Economists have found that the key to jump-
starting U.S. economic growth and job creation is
tangible action to rein in the growth of Government
spending with the aim of getting debt under control.
(6) Stanford economist John Taylor has concluded that
reducing Government spending now would ``reduce the
threats of higher taxes, higher interest rates and a
fiscal crisis'', and would therefore provide an
immediate stimulus to the economy.
(7) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has stated
that putting in place a credible plan to reduce future
deficits ``would not only enhance economic performance
in the long run, but could also yield near-term
benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates
and increased consumer and business confidence.''
(8) Lowering spending would boost market confidence
and lessen uncertainty, leading to a spark in economic
expansion, job creation, and higher wages and income.
(b) Policy on Economic Growth and Job Creation.--It is the
policy of this resolution to promote faster economic growth and
job creation. By putting the budget on a sustainable path, this
resolution ends the debt-fueled uncertainty holding back job
creators. Reforms to the tax code put American businesses and
workers in a better position to compete and thrive in the 21st
century global economy. This resolution targets the regulatory
red tape and cronyism that stack the deck in favor of special
interests. All of the reforms in this resolution serve as means
to the larger end of growing the economy and expanding
opportunity for all Americans.
SEC. 702. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) A world-class tax system should be simple, fair,
and promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The
U.S. tax code fails on all three counts - it is
notoriously complex, patently unfair, and highly
inefficient. The tax code's complexity distorts
decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to
slower economic growth, lower wages, and less job
creation.
(2) Since 2001 alone, there have been more than 3,250
changes to the code. Many of the major changes over the
years have involved carving out special preferences,
exclusions, or deductions for various activities or
groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 trillion
per year and make the code unfair, inefficient, and
very complex.
(3) These tax preferences are disproportionately used
by upper-income individuals. For instance, the top 1
percent of taxpayers reap about 3 times as much benefit
from special tax credits and deductions (excluding
refundable credits) than the middle class and 13 times
as much benefit than the lowest income quintile.
(4) The large amount of tax preferences that pervade
the code end up narrowing the tax base by as much as 50
percent. A narrow tax base, in turn, requires much
higher tax rates to raise a given amount of revenue.
(5) The National Taxpayer Advocate reports that
taxpayers spent 6.1 billion hours in 2012 complying
with tax requirements.
(6) Standard economic theory shows that high marginal
tax rates dampen the incentives to work, save, and
invest, which reduces economic output and job creation.
Lower economic output, in turn, mutes the intended
revenue gain from higher marginal tax rates.
(7) Roughly half of U.S. active business income and
half of private sector employment are derived from
business entities (such as partnerships, S
corporations, and sole proprietorships) that are taxed
on a ``pass-through'' basis, meaning the income flows
through to the tax returns of the individual owners and
is taxed at the individual rate structure rather than
at the corporate rate. Small businesses in particular
tend to choose this form for Federal tax purposes, and
the top Federal rate on such small business income
reaches 44.6 percent. For these reasons, sound economic
policy requires lowering marginal rates on these pass-
through entities.
(8) The U.S. corporate income tax rate (including
Federal, State, and local taxes) sums to just over 39
percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world.
The total Federal marginal tax rate on corporate income
now reaches 55 percent, when including the shareholder-
level tax on dividends and capital gains. Tax rates
this high suppress wages and discourage investment and
job creation, distort business activity, and put
American businesses at a competitive disadvantage with
foreign competitors.
(9) By deterring potential investment, the U.S.
corporate tax restrains economic growth and job
creation. The U.S. tax rate differential with other
countries also fosters a variety of complicated
multinational corporate behaviors intended to avoid the
tax, which have the effect of moving the tax base
offshore, destroying American jobs, and decreasing
corporate revenue.
(10) The ``worldwide'' structure of U.S.
international taxation essentially taxes earnings of
U.S. firms twice, putting them at a significant
competitive disadvantage with competitors with more
competitive international tax systems.
(11) Reforming the U.S. tax code to a more
competitive international system would boost the
competitiveness of U.S. companies operating abroad and
it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
(12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers
through lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and
on investors in diminished returns.
(13) Revenues have averaged 18 percent of the economy
throughout modern American history. Revenues rise above
this level under current law to 19.1 percent of the
economy, and - if the spending restraints in this
budget are enacted - this level is sufficient to fund
Government operations over time.
(14) Attempting to raise revenue through tax
increases to meet out-of-control spending would sink
the economy.
(15) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does not
constitute fundamental tax reform.
(16) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or
eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax
rates across the board - not to fund more wasteful
Government spending. Tax reform should be revenue-
neutral and should not be an excuse to raise taxes on
the American people.
(b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this
resolution that Congress should enact legislation during fiscal
year 2014 that provides for a comprehensive reform of the U.S.
tax code to promote economic growth, create American jobs,
increase wages, and benefit American consumers, investors, and
workers through revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform, which
should be reported by the Committee on Ways and Means to the
House not later than December 31, 2013, that--
(1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to
American families and businesses and reduces the amount
of time and resources necessary to comply with tax
laws;
(2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals,
with a goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25
percent and consolidating the current seven individual
income tax brackets into two brackets with a first
bracket of 10 percent;
(3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
(4) reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent; and
(5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive
system of international taxation.
SEC. 703. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare
for their health security.
(2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly
recommended that Medicare's long-term financial
challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform,
the financial condition of Medicare becomes more
precarious and the threat to those in or near
retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the
Congressional Budget Office--
(A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be
exhausted in 2023 and unable to pay scheduled
benefits; and
(B) Medicare spending is growing faster than
the economy and Medicare outlays are currently
rising at a rate of 6.2 percent per year, and
under the Congressional Budget Office's
alternative fiscal scenario, direct spending on
Medicare is projected to exceed 7 percent of
GDP by 2040 and reach 13 percent of GDP by
2085.
(3) The President's health care law created a new
Federal agency called the Independent Payment Advisory
Board (``IPAB'') empowered with unilateral authority to
cut Medicare spending. As a result of that law--
(A) IPAB will be tasked with keeping the
Medicare per capita growth below a Medicare per
capita target growth rate. Prior to 2018, the
target growth rate is based on the five-year
average of overall inflation and medical
inflation. Beginning in 2018, the target growth
rate will be the five-year average increase in
the nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) plus
one percentage point;
(B) the fifteen unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats of IPAB will make decisions that
will reduce seniors access to care;
(C) the nonpartisan Office of the Medicare
Chief Actuary estimates that the provider cuts
already contained in the Affordable Care Act
will force 15 percent of hospitals, skilled
nursing facilities, and home health agencies to
close in 2019; and
(D) additional cuts from the IPAB board will
force even more health care providers to close
their doors, and the Board should be repealed.
(4) Failing to address this problem will leave
millions of American seniors without adequate health
security and younger generations burdened with enormous
debt to pay for spending levels that cannot be
sustained.
(b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this
resolution to protect those in or near retirement from any
disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future
beneficiaries the same health care options available to Members
of Congress.
(c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the
Medicare program such that:
(1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those
in or near retirement.
(2) For future generations, when they reach
eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium
support payment and a selection of guaranteed health
coverage options from which recipients can choose a
plan that best suits their needs.
(3) Medicare will maintain traditional fee-for-
service as an option.
(4) Medicare will provide additional assistance for
lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater
health risks.
(5) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path
and the Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-
term.
SEC. 704. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with
disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security.
Since enactment, Social Security has served as a vital
leg on the ``three-legged stool'' of retirement
security, which includes employer provided pensions as
well as personal savings.
(2) The Social Security Trustees Report has
repeatedly recommended that Social Security's long-term
financial challenges be addressed soon. Each year
without reform, the financial condition of Social
Security becomes more precarious and the threat to
seniors and those receiving Social Security disability
benefits becomes more pronounced:
(A) In 2016, the Disability Insurance Trust
Fund will be exhausted and program revenues
will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
(B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and
Survivors and Disability Trust Funds will be
exhausted, and program revenues will be unable
to pay scheduled benefits.
(C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds in
2033, benefits will be cut 25 percent across
the board, devastating those currently in or
near retirement and those who rely on Social
Security the most.
(3) The recession and continued low economic growth
have exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing
Social Security. The most recent CBO projections find
that Social Security will run cash deficits of $1.319
trillion over the next 10 years.
(4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security
for a larger proportion of their retirement income.
Therefore, reforms should take into consideration the
need to protect lower-income Americans' retirement
security.
(5) The Disability Insurance program provides an
essential income safety net for those with disabilities
and their families. According to the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), between 1970 and 2012, the number
of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled
workers and their dependent family members) has
increased by over 300 percent from 2.7 million to over
10.9 million. This increase is not due strictly to
population growth or decreases in health. David Autor
and Mark Duggan have found that the increase in
individuals on disability does not reflect a decrease
in self-reported health. CBO attributes program growth
to changes in demographics, changes in the composition
of the labor force and compensation, as well as Federal
policies.
(6) If this program is not reformed, families who
rely on the lifeline that disability benefits provide
will face benefit cuts of up to 25 percent in 2016,
devastating individuals who need assistance the most.
(7) Americans deserve action by the President, the
House, and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social
Security. It is critical that bipartisan action be
taken to address the looming insolvency of Social
Security. In this spirit, this resolution creates a
bipartisan opportunity to find solutions by requiring
policymakers to ensure that Social Security remains a
critical part of the safety net.
(b) Policy Statement on Social Security.--It is the policy of
this resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis
to make Social Security sustainably solvent. This resolution
assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
(1) If in any year the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and
the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund annual
Trustees Report determines that the 75-year actuarial
balance of the Social Security Trust Funds is in
deficit, and the annual balance of the Social Security
Trust Funds in the 75th year is in deficit, the Board
of Trustees shall, no later than September 30 of the
same calendar year, submit to the President
recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to
achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a
positive annual balance in the 75th-year.
Recommendations provided to the President must be
agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the Board of
Trustees.
(2) Not later than December 1 of the same calendar
year in which the Board of Trustees submit their
recommendations, the President shall promptly submit
implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress
including his recommendations necessary to achieve a
positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive
annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority Leader of
the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House shall
introduce the President's legislation upon receipt.
(3) Within 60 days of the President submitting
legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which
the legislation has been referred shall report the bill
which shall be considered by the full House or Senate
under expedited procedures.
(4) Legislation submitted by the President shall--
(A) protect those in or near retirement;
(B) preserve the safety net for those who
count on Social Security the most, including
those with disabilities and survivors;
(C) improve fairness for participants;
(D) reduce the burden on, and provide
certainty for, future generations; and
(E) secure the future of the Disability
Insurance program while addressing the needs of
those with disabilities today and improving the
determination process.
SEC. 705. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) A well-educated workforce is critical to
economic, job, and wage growth.
(2) More than 21 million students are enrolled in
American colleges and universities.
(3) Over the last decade, tuition and fees have been
growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the 2001-2002
Academic Year and the 2011-2012 Academic Year:
(A) Published tuition and fees for in-State
students at public four-year colleges and
universities increased at an average rate of
5.6 percent per year beyond the rate of general
inflation.
(B) Published tuition and fees for in-State
students at public two-year colleges and
universities increased at an average rate of
3.8 percent per year beyond the rate of general
inflation.
(C) Published tuition and fees for in-State
students at private four-year colleges and
universities increased at an average rate of
2.6 percent per year beyond the rate of general
inflation.
(4) Over that same period, Federal financial aid has
increased 140 percent beyond the rate of general
inflation.
(5) This spending has failed to make college more
affordable.
(6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President
Obama noted that, ``We can't just keep subsidizing
skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money.''
(7) American students are chasing ever-increasing
tuition with ever-increasing debt. According to the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, student debt nearly
tripled between 2004 and 2012, and now stands at nearly
$1 trillion. Student debt now has the second largest
balance after mortgage debt.
(8) Students are carrying large debt loads and too
many fail to complete college or end up defaulting on
these loans due to their debt burden and a weak economy
and job market.
(9) Based on estimates from the Congressional Budget
Office, the Pell Grant Program will face a fiscal
shortfall beginning in fiscal year 2015 and continuing
in each subsequent year in the current budget window.
(10) Failing to address these problems will
jeopardize access and affordability to higher education
for America's young people.
(b) Policy on Higher Education Affordability.--It is the
policy of this resolution to address the root drivers of
tuition inflation, by--
(1) targeting Federal financial aid to those most in
need;
(2) streamlining programs that provide aid to make
them more effective;
(3) maintaining the maximum Pell grant award level at
$5,645 in each year of the budget window; and
(4) removing regulatory barriers in higher education
that act to restrict flexibility and innovative
teaching, particularly as it relates to non-traditional
models such as online coursework and competency-based
learning.
SEC. 706. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) According to the last available estimate from the
Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were
expected to hold $698 billion in unobligated balances
at the close of fiscal year 2013.
(2) These funds represent direct and discretionary
spending made available by Congress that remains
available for expenditure beyond the fiscal year for
which they are provided.
(3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and
it remains available for obligation indefinitely.
(4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 requires the Office of Management and
Budget to make funds available to agencies for
obligation and prohibits the Administration from
withholding or cancelling unobligated funds unless
approved by an act of Congress.
(5) Greater congressional oversight is required to
review and identify potential savings from unneeded
balances of funds.
(b) Policy Statement on Deficit Reduction Through the
Cancellation of Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees
shall through their oversight activities identify and achieve
savings through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated
balances that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the
Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under
programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national
security, and Treasury authority to finance the national debt.
(c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of the
Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, and
other appropriate agencies should make it a high priority to
review unobligated balances and identify savings for deficit
reduction.
SEC. 707. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER
DOLLARS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The House of Representatives cut budgets for
Members of Congress, House committees, and leadership
offices by 5 percent in 2011 and an additional 6.4
percent in 2012.
(2) The House of Representatives achieved savings of
$36.5 million over three years by consolidating House
operations and renegotiating contracts.
(b) Policy.--It is the policy of this resolution that:
(1) The House of Representatives must be a model for
the responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources and
therefore must identify any savings that can be
achieved through greater productivity and efficiency
gains in the operation and maintenance of House
services and resources like printing, conferences,
utilities, telecommunications, furniture, grounds
maintenance, postage, and rent. This should include a
review of policies and procedures for acquisition of
goods and services to eliminate any unnecessary
spending. The Committee on House Administration should
review the policies pertaining to the services provided
to Members and committees of the House, and should
identify ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the
operation of the House gym, barber shop, salon, and the
House dining room.
(2) No taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first
class airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of
Congress.
SEC. 708. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE REDUCTION
OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') is
required by law to identify examples of waste,
duplication, and overlap in Federal programs, and has
so identified dozens of such examples.
(2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, the Comptroller General has
stated that addressing the identified waste,
duplication, and overlap in Federal programs ``could
potentially save tens of billions of dollars.''
(3) In 2011 and 2012, the Government Accountability
Office issued reports showing excessive duplication and
redundancy in Federal programs including--
(A) 209 ``Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics'' (``STEM'') education programs
in 13 different Federal agencies at a cost of
$3 billion annually;
(B) 200 separate Department of Justice crime
prevention and victim services grant programs
with an annual cost of $3.9 billion in 2010;
(C) 20 different Federal entities administer
160 housing programs and other forms of Federal
assistance for housing with a total cost of
$170 billion in 2010;
(D) 17 separate Homeland Security
preparedness grant programs that spent $37
billion between fiscal year 2011 and 2012;
(E) 13 programs, 3 tax benefits, and one loan
program to reduce diesel emissions; and
(F) 94 different initiatives run by 11
different agencies to encourage ``green
building'' in the private sector.
(4) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion
each year for information technology. GAO has
identified broad acquisition failures, waste, and
unnecessary duplication in the Government's information
technology infrastructure. Experts have estimated that
eliminating these problems could save 25 percent - or
$20 billion - of the Government's annual information
technology budget.
(5) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108
billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2012.
(6) Under clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, each standing committee must
hold at least one hearing during each 120 day period
following its establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or
mismanagement in Government programs.
(7) According to the Congressional Budget Office, by
fiscal year 2014, 42 laws will expire, possibly
resulting in $685 billion in unauthorized
appropriations. Timely reauthorizations of these laws
would ensure assessments of program justification and
effectiveness.
(8) The findings resulting from congressional
oversight of Federal Government programs should result
in programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes
and program funding levels.
(b) Policy Statement on Deficit Reduction Through the
Reduction of Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each
authorizing committee annually shall include in its Views and
Estimates letter required under section 301(d) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 recommendations to the
Committee on the Budget of programs within the jurisdiction of
such committee whose funding should be reduced or eliminated.
SEC. 709. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING.
It is the policy of this resolution that the committees of
jurisdiction should review all unauthorized programs funded
through annual appropriations to determine if the programs are
operating efficiently and effectively. Committees should
reauthorize those programs that in the committees' judgment
should continue to receive funding.
TITLE VIII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure
that States have the necessary resources to collect all
child support that is owed to families and to allow
them to pass 100 percent of support on to families
without financial penalty; and
(2) when 100 percent of child support payments are
passed to the child, rather than administrative
expenses, program integrity is improved and child
support participation increases.
