Datasets:

hyperdemocracy

/

usc-llm-text

like 0

113-hconres-1

III 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 1 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 4 (legislative day, January 3), 2013 Received CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government. That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. Passed the House of Representatives January 3, 2013. Karen L. Haas, Clerk

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres1rds/xml/BILLS-113hconres1rds.xml

113-hconres-2

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 2 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Ms. Jackson Lee submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of George Thomas Mickey Leland. Whereas George Thomas Leland (affectionately known as Mickey ), in the course of his 6 terms as a member of the House of Representatives from the State of Texas, emerged as a national spokesman regarding the problem of hunger in the United States and throughout the world; Whereas Mickey Leland was instrumental in establishing the Select Committee on Hunger and served as chairman of that committee until the time of his death; Whereas in the capacity of chairman of the Select Committee on Hunger, Mickey Leland helped generate public awareness of the complex issues relating to the alleviation of hunger and demonstrated strong personal moral leadership; Whereas it was his leadership that guided the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, which required the Secretary of Agriculture not only to distribute surplus food, but also to purchase additional food for future distributions to needy households; Whereas Mickey Leland brought together entertainment personalities, religious leaders, and private volunteer agencies to generate public support for the African Famine Relief and Recovery Act of 1985, which provided $800,000,000 in food and humanitarian relief supplies; Whereas the various initiatives brought forth by Mickey Leland to eradicate world hunger undoubtedly saved thousands of lives; Whereas 2007 marks the 18th anniversary of Mickey Leland’s death; Whereas Mickey Leland died as he lived: on a mission to make a positive difference in this world; and Whereas commemorative postage stamps have been commissioned to honor other great leaders in American history: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of Congress that— (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of George Thomas Mickey Leland; and (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres2ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres2ih.xml

113-hconres-3

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 3 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Mr. Jones submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution. Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’ exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’ exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres3ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres3ih.xml

113-hconres-4

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 4 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Mr. Gary G. Miller of California (for himself and Mr. Sherman ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second home should not be further restricted. Whereas homeownership is a fundamental American ideal, which promotes social and economic benefits beyond the benefits that accrue to the occupant of the home; Whereas homeownership is an important factor in promoting economic security and stability for American families; Whereas it is proper that the policy of the Federal Government is and should continue to be to encourage homeownership; Whereas the national homeownership rate for the third quarter of the year 2012 was 65.3 percent; Whereas the housing needs of the population will change as the population ages; Whereas the greatest growth sectors in homeownership are minorities and first-time homebuyers; Whereas the level of homeownership among foreign-born naturalized citizens is the same as the level of homeownership of the Nation as a whole (66 percent in 2011); Whereas the value of a home represents a valuable source of savings for a family; Whereas the provisions related to homeownership are among the simplest and most easily administered provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; Whereas the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first home has been a valuable cornerstone of this Nation’s housing policy for most of this century and may well be the most important component of housing-related tax policy in America today; and Whereas the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by second homes is of crucial importance to the economies of many communities in each of the 50 States: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of the Congress that the current Federal income tax deduction for interest paid on debt secured by a first or second home should not be further restricted.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres4ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres4ih.xml

113-hconres-5

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 5 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Mr. Walz submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the Mississippi River and its status as a vital resource of the United States. 1. Use of emancipation hall for event to celebrate the Mississippi River (a) Authorization Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on March 21, 2013, for an event to celebrate the Mississippi River and its status as a vital resource of the United States and what it represents as a indelible component of the Nation’s environment, economy, cultural heritage, and history. (b) Preparations Physical preparations for the event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres5ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres5ih.xml

113-hconres-6

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 6 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 4, 2013 Ms. Kaptur submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. That it is the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution in its decision in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo because— (1) the decision failed to recognize that the unlimited spending of large amounts of money on elections has a corrosive effect on the electoral process not simply because of direct transactions between those who give large amounts of money and candidates and elected officials but because the presence of unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process on a more fundamental level; and (2) the decision failed to recognize other legitimate state interests which justify limiting money in campaigns, including the need to preserve the integrity of our republican form of government, restore public confidence in government, and ensure all citizens a more equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres6ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres6ih.xml

113-hconres-7

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 7 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 4, 2013 Ms. Lee of California (for herself, Mr. Holt , and Mr. Grijalva ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should provide, on an annual basis, an amount equal to at least one percent of United States gross domestic product (GDP) for nonmilitary foreign assistance programs. Whereas, on April 3, 1948, President Harry Truman signed into law the Economic Recovery Act of 1948, inspired by a plan of economic trade and assistance for European countries proposed by Secretary of State George C. Marshall, otherwise known as the Marshall Plan; Whereas, from the years 1947 to 1951, the United States gave $13 billion, equivalent to $137 billion in 2007, in economic aid and technical assistance to assist in the economic recovery of 16 European countries; Whereas the Marshall Plan, among other objectives, sought to assure global peace and defend the national security of the United States through direct foreign assistance programs aimed at combating economic, social, and political degradation; Whereas poverty, lack of opportunity, and environmental degradation are recognized as significant contributors to socioeconomic and political instability, as well as to the exacerbation of disease pandemics and other global health threats; Whereas elevating the United States standing in the world represents a critical and essential element of any strategy to improve national and global security by mitigating the root causes of conflict and multinational terrorism, strengthening diplomatic and economic relationships, preventing global climate change, curbing weapons proliferation, and fostering peace and cooperation between all nations; Whereas the Foreign Assistance Act, signed into law on September 4, 1961, reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, [and] illness ; Whereas Congress created the Peace Corps in 1961 and the United States has since sent more than 200,000 volunteers to 139 nations to promote the Peace Corps’ mission of world peace and friendship through service in the developing world; Whereas, on November 3, 1961, President John F. Kennedy established the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) with the aim of providing direct support to developing countries in a manner free of political and military influence; Whereas over the last 10 years, Congress and successive Executive Branch administrations have worked to more than double foreign assistance and implement a number of new foreign aid initiatives to support global health, development, human rights, and good governance including the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), the President’s International Education Initiative, the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the Global Food Security and Feed the Future Initiatives, and the Global Health Initiative; Whereas President Obama has expressed his commitment to achieve the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty and hunger around the world in half by 2015, as well as his intent to double the level of foreign assistance to meet that goal; Whereas the United States has pledged its support, along with every United Nations member state and numerous international organizations, to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals in order to reduce extreme poverty, support sustainable development, and address the needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations; Whereas the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, derived from the United Nations Millennium Declaration signed on September 8, 2000, seek to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop a global partnership for development; Whereas the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs indicates that in June 2010, progress was either insufficient, absent, or deteriorating for more than half of key targets related to compliance with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals; Whereas the World Bank estimates that in 2005, 1.4 billion people across the globe were experiencing extreme poverty, living on less than $1.25 a day; Whereas according to the United Nations Development Program’s 2010 Human Development Report more than 1.7 billion people (across 104 countries examined in the report) live in multidimensional poverty according to the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), an indicator which provides a comprehensive picture of severe deprivations common to poor households including in health, education, and standard of living; Whereas the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the number of undernourished people in the world totaled 925 million in 2010, equivalent to 13.4 percent of the world population and representing an increase of roughly 100 million people from 1990; Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat has indicated that by 2030, the cost of adapting to global climate change could amount to more than $170 billion annually, with $28 billion to $67 billion per year required to meet the needs of the developing world; Whereas in 2009, the United States was in the bottom five of the world's 23 wealthiest countries in official development assistance funding as a percentage of gross national income (GNI), totaling $28.7 billion and representing 0.2 percent; Whereas, on November 26, 2007, United States Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates stated that funding for nonmilitary foreign affairs programs remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities and called for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security—diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. ; Whereas, on December 15, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton released the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), a blueprint for a whole-of-government approach to diplomacy and development, noting in public remarks that U.S. civilian power is a wise investment for American taxpayers that will pay off by averting conflicts, opening markets, and reducing threats ; Whereas a principal objective of the foreign policy of the United States, as codified in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is the encouragement and sustained support of the people of developing countries in their efforts to acquire the knowledge and resources essential to development and to build the economic, political, and social institutions which will improve the quality of their lives ; Whereas broad-based country- and community-ownership, sustainable and responsible trade opportunities, the robust engagement of vulnerable populations including women, and a commitment to improve governance and the rule of law, are all critical to the long-term success of development programs; Whereas individuals, businesses, and philanthropic organizations across the United States continue to play a vital and increasing role in international efforts to create a more peaceful and prosperous world for all individuals through direct and indirect assistance; Whereas studies indicate that a majority of the individuals in the United States, whose tax dollars fund Federal expenditures, support increasing funding to meet the Millennium Development Goals and to committing a higher percentage of GDP to address global poverty; and Whereas a firm and significant financial commitment to enhance United States foreign assistance programs exemplifies the compassion and resolve of the people of the United States to benefit and empower all peoples of the world for the betterment of humankind: Now, therefore, be it That Congress— (1) recognizes that foreign assistance programs are of critical importance in promoting national security, demonstrating the humanitarian spirit of the people of the United States, and improving the credibility and standing of the United States in world affairs; and (2) expresses its support for attaining the goal of providing, on an annual basis, an amount equal to no less than one percent of United States gross domestic product (GDP) for nonmilitary foreign assistance programs.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres7ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres7ih.xml

113-hconres-8

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 8 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 15, 2013 Mr. McKinley (for himself, Mr. Pompeo , Mr. Upton , Mr. Barton , Mr. Whitfield , Mr. Shimkus , Mr. Rahall , Mr. Rogers of Kentucky , Mr. Terry , Mrs. Blackburn , Mr. Johnson of Ohio , and Mrs. Capito ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the opposition of Congress to Federal efforts to establish a carbon tax on fuels for electricity and transportation. Whereas affordable and abundant electricity from coal and natural gas is a strategic resource that is essential to modern life, America’s economic competitiveness, and, ultimately, independence from foreign and volatile sources of energy; Whereas the application of a carbon tax to gasoline and other transportation fuels will have a dramatic, immediate impact on transportation costs, with the greatest impact being felt by low-income Americans and their families; Whereas a carbon tax is designed to result in substantial, immediate increases in the price of electricity, making electricity less affordable for millions of Americans; Whereas a carbon tax applicable to coal and natural gas electricity generation would be punitive and harmful to the American people by artificially raising electricity costs; Whereas, with continuing high national joblessness and an unemployment rate exceeding 7.8 percent every month since February 2009, a carbon tax will drive the unemployment rate even higher; Whereas a carbon tax is likely to have an uneven effect, hitting different regions of the country and segments of the economy much more severely than others; Whereas a carbon tax is regressive and will impose the greatest burden on low-income individuals and families who already spend the largest share of their income on energy and are least able to afford a carbon tax; Whereas economic modeling of Australia’s recently implemented carbon tax shows that it increases energy costs, and reduces growth in GDP, productivity, and household incomes; Whereas a carbon tax in the United States will have no impact on China, India, and other major sources of carbon emissions throughout the world, except to increase their competitiveness with the United States; and Whereas a carbon tax will put United States exporters at a competitive disadvantage by increasing domestic manufacturing production costs: Now, therefore, be it That Congress opposes Federal efforts to establish a carbon tax on fuels for electricity and transportation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres8ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres8ih.xml

113-hconres-9

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 9 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 22, 2013 Mr. Rigell submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Prohibiting the House or Senate from adjourning for a period of more than 5 days during a fiscal year unless the House involved has adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year and has approved legislation to provide funding for the operations of the government for the entire fiscal year. 1. Short title This resolution may be cited as the Govern Before Going Home Resolution . 2. Prohibiting adjournment until adoption of budget and funding (a) Prohibiting adjournment The House of Representatives or Senate may not adjourn for a period of more than 5 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, except when the House or Senate is in session on such a day) during a fiscal year unless, at the time the period of adjournment begins, the House or Senate (as the case may be)— (1) has adopted a concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year; and (2) has approved each regular appropriation bill for such fiscal year or, to the extent that it has not approved such a bill, has approved a continuing resolution to provide funding for the entire fiscal year for the projects and activities covered by such bill. (b) Regular appropriation bill defined In this section, the term regular appropriation bill means any annual appropriation bill making appropriations, otherwise making funds available, or granting authority, for any of the following categories of projects and activities: (1) Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies programs. (2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies. (3) The Department of Defense. (4) Energy and water development, and related agencies. (5) Financial services and general government. (6) The Department of Homeland Security. (7) The Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies. (8) The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies. (9) The legislative branch. (10) Military construction and veterans affairs. (11) The Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs. (12) The Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres9ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres9ih.xml

113-hconres-10

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 10 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 25, 2013 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Mr. Kind , Ms. Speier , Mr. Sires , Mr. Moran , Ms. Norton , Mr. Sablan , Mr. Polis , Mr. Cicilline , Mr. Pocan , Ms. Sinema , Ms. Schakowsky , and Mr. Honda ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Supporting the goals and ideals of No Name-Calling Week in bringing attention to name-calling of all kinds and providing schools with the tools and inspiration to launch an on-going dialogue about ways to eliminate name-calling and bullying in their communities. Whereas No Name-Calling Week is an annual week of educational activities aimed at ending name-calling of all kinds and providing schools with the tools and inspiration to launch an on-going dialogue about ways to eliminate name-calling and bullying in their communities; Whereas 60 organizations, including the National School Boards Association, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association, National Association of School Psychologists, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, have come together as No Name-Calling Week partner organizations; Whereas thousands of students have participated in No Name-Calling Week since its inception in 2004; Whereas the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network has conducted and released national studies analyzing the pervasive harassment and victimization faced by elementary students and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) secondary students; Whereas 26 percent of elementary students reported hearing others say hurtful things based on another student’s race or ethnic background; Whereas 30 percent of elementary students reported being bullied or called names at some point while in school; Whereas over 70 percent of LGBT middle and high school students frequently hear homophobic remarks and over 80 percent of LGBT middle and high school students were verbally harassed in the past year because of their sexual orientation; and Whereas 55 percent of LGBT middle and high school students experienced harassment via electronic means in the past year: Now, therefore, be it That Congress— (1) supports the goals and ideals of No Name-Calling Week; and (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe No Name-Calling Week with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres10ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres10ih.xml

113-hconres-11

II 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 11 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 7, 2013 Received CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the President. That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, at 9 p.m., for the purpose of receiving such communication as the President of the United States shall be pleased to make to them. Passed the House of Representatives February 4, 2013. Karen L. Haas, Clerk

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres11rds/xml/BILLS-113hconres11rds.xml

113-hconres-12

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 12 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 12, 2013 Mr. Al Green of Texas (for himself, Ms. Bass , Mrs. Beatty , Mr. Bishop of Georgia , Ms. Brown of Florida , Mr. Carson of Indiana , Ms. Clarke , Mr. Clay , Mr. Cleaver , Mr. Clyburn , Mr. Conyers , Mr. Cummings , Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois , Ms. Edwards , Ms. Fudge , Mr. Hastings of Florida , Mr. Hinojosa , Mr. Honda , Ms. Jackson Lee , Mr. Jeffries , Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas , Mr. Johnson of Georgia , Ms. Lee of California , Mr. Lewis , Mr. Meeks , Ms. Moore , Ms. Norton , Mr. Pastor of Arizona , Mr. Payne , Mr. Rangel , Mr. Richmond , Mr. Rush , Mr. David Scott of Georgia , Mr. Scott of Virginia , Ms. Sewell of Alabama , Mr. Thompson of Mississippi , Mr. Veasey , Ms. Waters , Mr. Watt , Ms. Wilson of Florida , and Mr. Butterfield ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 104th anniversary. Whereas the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), originally known as the National Negro Committee, was founded in New York City on February 12, 1909, the centennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, by a multiracial group of activists who met in a national conference to discuss the civil and political rights of African-Americans; Whereas the NAACP was founded by a distinguished group of leaders in the struggle for civil and political liberty, including Ida Wells-Barnett, W.E.B. DuBois, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villard, and William English Walling; Whereas the NAACP is the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States; Whereas the NAACP National Headquarters is located in Baltimore, Maryland; Whereas the mission of the NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination; Whereas the NAACP is committed to achieving its goals through nonviolence; Whereas the NAACP advances its mission through reliance upon the press, the petition, the ballot, and the courts, and has been persistent in the use of legal and moral persuasion, even in the face of overt and violent racial hostility; Whereas the NAACP has used political pressure, marches, demonstrations, and effective lobbying to serve as the voice, as well as the shield, for minorities in the United States; Whereas after years of fighting segregation in public schools, the NAACP, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall, won one of its greatest legal victories in the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Whereas in 1955, NAACP member Rosa Parks was arrested and fined for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama, an act of courage that would serve as the catalyst for the largest grassroots civil rights movement in the history of the United States; Whereas the NAACP was prominent in lobbying for the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, César E. Chávez, Barbara C. Jordan, William C. Velásquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, and the Fair Housing Act, laws that ensured Government protection for legal victories achieved; Whereas in 2005, the NAACP launched the Disaster Relief Fund to help hurricane survivors in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, and Alabama to rebuild their lives; Whereas in the 110th Congress, the NAACP was prominent in lobbying for the passage of H. Res. 826, whose resolved clause expresses that the hanging of nooses is a horrible act when used for the purpose of intimidation and which under certain circumstances can be criminal, this conduct should be investigated thoroughly by Federal authorities, and any criminal violations should be vigorously prosecuted; Whereas in 2008, the NAACP vigorously supported the passage of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007, a law that puts additional Federal resources into solving the heinous crimes that occurred in the early days of the civil rights struggle that remain unsolved and bringing those who perpetrated such crimes to justice; Whereas the NAACP has helped usher in the new millennium by charting a bold course, beginning with the appointment of the organization’s youngest President and Chief Executive Officer, Benjamin Todd Jealous, and its youngest female Board Chair, Roslyn M. Brock; Whereas under their leadership, the NAACP has outlined a strategic plan to confront 21st century challenges in the critical areas of health, education, housing, criminal justice, and environment; Whereas, on July 16, 2009, the NAACP celebrated its centennial anniversary in New York City, highlighting an extraordinary century of Bold Dreams, Big Victories with a historic address from the first African-American President of the United States, Barack Obama; Whereas as an advocate for sentencing reform, the NAACP applauded the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 ( Public Law 111–220 ; 124 Stat. 2372), a landmark piece of legislation that reduces the quantity of crack cocaine that triggers a mandatory minimum sentence for a Federal conviction of crack cocaine distribution from 100 times that of people convicted of distributing the drug in powdered form to 18 times that sentence; and Whereas in 2011, the NAACP led the charge to defend the constitutional right to vote and to protect that right for all citizens of the United States, whether they be seniors, young voters, the poor, or from minority communities: Now, therefore, be it That Congress— (1) recognizes the 104th anniversary of the historic founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; and (2) honors and praises the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its anniversary for its work to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all persons.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres12ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres12ih.xml

113-hconres-13

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 13 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 13, 2013 Mrs. Christensen submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service should incorporate consideration of global warming and sea-level rise into the comprehensive conservation plans for coastal national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes. Whereas global warming can generally be described as an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, and sea-level rise can best be described as an overall increase in sea level; Whereas global warming and related aspects of climate change are caused by the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to industrial processes and fossil fuel combustion associated with the process of economic growth, and changes in land use such as deforestation; Whereas studies show that the continuation of historical trends of greenhouse gas emissions will result in additional global warming, with current projections of global warming 2.5°F to 10.4°F by 2100; Whereas global warming will induce sea-level rise that will steadily inundate coastal areas, change precipitation patterns, increase risk of droughts and floods, threaten biodiversity, and offer a host of potential challenges to public health; Whereas the generally expected 50 to 200 cm sea-level rise from global warming would inundate 7,000 square miles of dry land in the United States and equal amounts of coastal wetlands; Whereas such sea-level rise will effectively force recreational beaches inland, exacerbate coastal flooding, and increase the salinity of aquifers and estuaries in the next century; Whereas it has been reported that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now will persist for approximately 100 years; Whereas if we are not proactive in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and wait to see obvious effects of global warming and sea-level rise, it may be too late to avoid the harmful repercussions of such events; Whereas the ongoing and projected estimates of sea-level rise as a result of global warming threaten the loss of 22 percent of the world’s coastal wetlands by 2080; Whereas the ongoing and projected increases in sea-level rise as a result of global warming have extremely strong implications for stewardship by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service of nearly 1,100,000 acres of coastal wetlands located in 159 coastal national wildlife refuges in the United States and its Caribbean and Pacific territories; Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats; Whereas the effects of global warming and sea-level rise may greatly impact the effectiveness of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the conservation of migratory birds, anadromous and interjurisdictional fish, marine mammals, endangered species and threatened species, and the habitats on which these species depend; Whereas global warming and sea-level rise has already begun to affect some of the Nation’s most valued natural resources such as the coral reefs near Buck Island National Park in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, and Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge on the Chesapeake Bay, and other areas; and Whereas amendments to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 that were made by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 ( Public Law 105–57 ) require that the Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a comprehensive conservation plan for each national wildlife refuge within 15 years after the date of enactment of such Act: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of the Congress that— (1) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service should incorporate consideration of the effects of global warming and sea-level rise into the comprehensive conservation plan for each coastal national wildlife refuge; (2) each such comprehensive conservation plan should address, with respect to the refuge concerned, how global warming and sea-level rise will affect— (A) the ecological integrity of the refuge; (B) the distribution, migration patterns, and abundance of fish, wildlife, and plant populations and related habitats of the refuge; (C) the archaeological and cultural values of the refuge; (D) such areas within the refuge that are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities; and (E) opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the refuge; and (3) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in consultation with the United States Geological Survey, should conduct an assessment of the potential impacts of global warming and sea-level rise on coastal national wildlife refuges.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres13ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres13ih.xml

113-hconres-14

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 14 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 13, 2013 Mr. Grimm (for himself, Mr. Meehan , Mr. Waxman , and Mr. Israel ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. 1. Use of rotunda for holocaust days of remembrance ceremony The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 11, 2013, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres14ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres14ih.xml

113-hconres-15

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 15 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate. That when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, February 15, 2013, through Thursday, February 21, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 25, 2013, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on Friday, February 15, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, February 25, 2013, or such other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 2013. Karen L. Haas, Clerk.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres15eh/xml/BILLS-113hconres15eh.xml

113-hconres-16

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 16 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 15, 2013 Mr. Conaway (for himself, Mr. Alexander , Mr. Bonner , Mr. Boustany , Mr. Butterfield , Mr. Calvert , Mrs. Capito , Mr. Capuano , Mr. Cassidy , Mr. Coffman , Mr. Courtney , Mr. Cole , Mr. Crenshaw , Mr. Dent , Mr. Diaz-Balart , Mr. Dingell , Mrs. Ellmers , Mr. Fitzpatrick , Mr. Fleming , Mr. Flores , Mr. Gene Green of Texas , Mr. Gingrey of Georgia , Ms. Granger , Mr. Harper , Mr. Hastings of Florida , Mr. Hastings of Washington , Mr. Hinojosa , Mr. Huelskamp , Mr. Hultgren , Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois , Mr. Joyce , Mr. Kline , Mr. Lamborn , Mr. Lance , Mr. Loebsack , Mr. Long , Mr. Luetkemeyer , Mr. McHenry , Mr. Meeks , Mr. Michaud , Mr. Miller of Florida , Mr. Neugebauer , Mr. Nunnelee , Mr. Olson , Mr. Pearce , Mr. Petri , Mr. Poe of Texas , Mr. Pompeo , Mr. Rangel , Mr. Rogers of Kentucky , Mr. Rogers of Alabama , Mr. Rogers of Michigan , Mr. Royce , Mr. Runyan , Mr. Ryan of Ohio , Mr. Sarbanes , Mr. Schweikert , Mr. Sessions , Mr. Shimkus , Mr. Simpson , Mr. Stivers , Mr. Terry , Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania , Mr. Tiberi , Mr. Turner , Mr. Visclosky , Mr. Walberg , Mr. Walden , Mr. Westmoreland , Mr. Wittman , Mr. Wilson of South Carolina , Mr. Womack , and Mrs. McCarthy of New York ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act. Whereas the United States enjoys broadcasting and sound recording industries that are the envy of the world, due to the symbiotic relationship that has existed among these industries for many decades; Whereas for more than 80 years, Congress has rejected repeated calls by the recording industry to impose a performance fee on local radio stations for simply playing music on the radio and upsetting the mutually beneficial relationship between local radio and the recording industry; Whereas local radio stations provide free publicity and promotion to the recording industry and performers of music in the form of radio air play, interviews with performers, introduction of new performers, concert promotions, and publicity that promotes the sale of music, concert tickets, ring tones, music videos and associated merchandise; Whereas Congress found that “the sale of many sound recordings and the careers of many performers benefited considerably from airplay and other promotional activities provided by both noncommercial and advertiser-supported, free over-the-air broadcasting”; Whereas local radio broadcasters provide tens of thousands of hours of essential local news and weather information during times of national emergencies and natural disasters, as well as public affairs programming, sports, and hundreds of millions of dollars of time for public service announcements and local fund raising efforts for worthy charitable causes, all of which are jeopardized if local radio stations are forced to divert revenues to pay for a new performance fee; Whereas there are many thousands of local radio stations that will suffer severe economic hardship if any new performance fee is imposed, as will many other small businesses that play music including bars, restaurants, retail establishments, sports and other entertainment venues, shopping centers and transportation facilities; and Whereas the hardship that would result from a new performance fee would hurt American businesses, and ultimately the American consumers who rely on local radio for news, weather, and entertainment; and such a performance fee is not justified when the current system has produced the most prolific and innovative broadcasting, music, and sound recording industries in the world: Now, therefore, be it That Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the-air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres16ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres16ih.xml

113-hconres-17

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 17 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 15, 2013 Ms. Fudge (for herself, Ms. Chu , and Mr. Grijalva ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as National Voting Rights Act Mobilization Day . Whereas the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” too often has been disregarded throughout our Nation’s history; Whereas voting is the fundamental political right because it is “preservative of all rights”; Whereas the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution prohibit racial discrimination in voting by the States; Whereas when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain States employed tests and devices that were race-neutral on their face but were used to prevent racial minorities from registering and voting; Whereas when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, certain States and their political subdivisions had resorted to substituting new discriminatory practices for ones that were enjoined by the Federal courts, requiring aggrieved plaintiffs to assume the burden of repeated litigation to vindicate their fourteenth and fifteenth amendment rights; Whereas Congress enacted section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to require certain States and political subdivisions to submit new or modified voting practices for Federal review before they can be used; Whereas Congress reauthorized section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, and 1982 after finding a continuing pattern of racial discrimination in voting by the covered jurisdictions; Whereas the Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld section 5 against constitutional challenges, and pointed to section 5 as a model for the appropriate exercise of Congress’ enforcement authority under the Reconstruction Amendments; Whereas section 5 has proven to be one of the most effective provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in blocking and deterring many thousands of discriminatory voting practices that would have denied or abridged the ability of minority citizens to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice; Whereas Congress in 2006 reauthorized section 5 by overwhelming margins based upon an extensive record of continued racial voting discrimination within the covered jurisdictions; Whereas section 5 continues to require Federal review for changes in all or part of 16 States with histories of official discrimination, where the legislative record showed that the bulk of racial voting discrimination has remained concentrated; Whereas States and political subdivisions that show a clean recent record of voting rights compliance can “bail out” from section 5 coverage; Whereas there are ongoing election problems in both the covered and the non-covered States which urgently require the attention of Congress, including voting delays, badly designed and executed voter purges, unduly restrictive voter identification laws, and deceptive and intimidating phone calls, flyers, and billboards, but these problems do not necessarily require the non-covered States to comply with the section 5 preclearance remedy; Whereas section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains necessary to protect the hard-won gains in minority electoral participation in the covered States since 1965 against the imposition of new racially discriminatory voting practices; Whereas the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a constitutional challenge to the 2006 reauthorization of section 5; and Whereas February 27 would be an appropriate day for the Nation to focus upon the historic and continuing importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in ensuring equality at the ballot box: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of Congress that a day should be designated as National Voting Rights Act Mobilization Day , to remind all Americans of the critical role that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 continues to play in protecting the right to vote, and for them to voice their support for this landmark civil rights law.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres17ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres17ih.xml

113-hconres-18

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 18 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 26, 2013 Mr. Barletta (for himself and Ms. Norton ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service. 1. Use of the Capitol Grounds for National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service (a) In general The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as the sponsor ) shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the 32nd Annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service (in this resolution referred to as the event ), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty during 2012. (b) Date of event The event shall be held on May 15, 2013, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 2. Terms and conditions (a) In general Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be— (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress. (b) Expenses and liabilities The sponsor shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event. 3. Event preparations Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment, as may be required for the event. 4. Enforcement of restrictions The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres18ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres18ih.xml

113-hconres-19

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 19 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 26, 2013 Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Mr. Moran , Mr. Van Hollen , Mr. Wolf , Ms. Edwards , Mr. Connolly , Ms. Norton , and Mr. Delaney ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby. 1. Use of Capitol Grounds for soap box derby races (a) In General The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (in this resolution referred to as the sponsor ) shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races (in this resolution referred to as the event ), on the Capitol Grounds. (b) Date of Event The event shall be held on June 15, 2013, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 2. Terms and conditions (a) In General Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be— (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress. (b) Expenses and Liabilities The sponsor shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event. 3. Event preparations Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment as may be required for the event. 4. Additional arrangements The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized to make such additional arrangements as may be required to carry out the event. 5. Enforcement of restrictions The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres19ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres19ih.xml

113-hconres-20

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 20 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Professor Muhammad Yunus. 1. Use of rotunda for ceremony to award congressional gold medal to professor muhammad yunus The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 17, 2013, for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Professor Muhammad Yunus in recognition of his contributions to the fight against global poverty. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 2013. Karen L. Haas, Clerk.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres20eh/xml/BILLS-113hconres20eh.xml

113-hconres-21

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 21 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 5, 2013 Mr. King of New York (for himself, Mr. Meeks , Mr. Stockman , Mr. Grimm , and Mr. Bishop of New York ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that John Arthur Jack Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon for the racially motivated conviction in 1913 that diminished the athletic, cultural, and historic significance of Jack Johnson and unduly tarnished his reputation. Whereas John Arthur Jack Johnson was a flamboyant, defiant, and controversial figure in the history of the United States who challenged racial biases; Whereas Jack Johnson was born in Galveston, Texas, in 1878 to parents who were former slaves; Whereas Jack Johnson became a professional boxer and traveled throughout the United States, fighting White and African-American heavyweights; Whereas after being denied (on purely racial grounds) the opportunity to fight 2 White champions, in 1908, Jack Johnson was granted an opportunity by an Australian promoter to fight the reigning White title-holder, Tommy Burns; Whereas Jack Johnson defeated Tommy Burns to become the first African-American to hold the title of Heavyweight Champion of the World; Whereas the victory by Jack Johnson over Tommy Burns prompted a search for a White boxer who could beat Jack Johnson, a recruitment effort that was dubbed the search for the great white hope ; Whereas in 1910, a White former champion named Jim Jeffries left retirement to fight Jack Johnson in Reno, Nevada; Whereas Jim Jeffries lost to Jack Johnson in what was deemed the Battle of the Century ; Whereas the defeat of Jim Jeffries by Jack Johnson led to rioting, aggression against African-Americans, and the racially motivated murder of African-Americans nationwide; Whereas the relationships of Jack Johnson with White women compounded the resentment felt toward him by many Whites; Whereas between 1901 and 1910, 754 African-Americans were lynched, some for simply for being too familiar with White women; Whereas in 1910, Congress passed the Act of June 25, 1910 (commonly known as the White Slave Traffic Act or the Mann Act ) ( 18 U.S.C. 2421 et seq. ), which outlawed the transportation of women in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose ; Whereas in October 1912, Jack Johnson became involved with a White woman whose mother disapproved of their relationship and sought action from the Department of Justice, claiming that Jack Johnson had abducted her daughter; Whereas Jack Johnson was arrested by Federal marshals on October 18, 1912, for transporting the woman across State lines for an immoral purpose in violation of the Mann Act; Whereas the Mann Act charges against Jack Johnson were dropped when the woman refused to cooperate with Federal authorities, and then married Jack Johnson; Whereas Federal authorities persisted and summoned a White woman named Belle Schreiber, who testified that Jack Johnson had transported her across State lines for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery ; Whereas in 1913, Jack Johnson was convicted of violating the Mann Act and sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in Federal prison; Whereas Jack Johnson fled the United States to Canada and various European and South American countries; Whereas Jack Johnson lost the Heavyweight Championship title to Jess Willard in Cuba in 1915; Whereas Jack Johnson returned to the United States in July 1920, surrendered to authorities, and served nearly a year in the Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas; Whereas Jack Johnson subsequently fought in boxing matches, but never regained the Heavyweight Championship title; Whereas Jack Johnson served his country during World War II by encouraging citizens to buy war bonds and participating in exhibition boxing matches to promote the war bond cause; Whereas Jack Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946; Whereas in 1954, Jack Johnson was inducted into the Boxing Hall of Fame; and Whereas, on July 29, 2009, the 111th Congress agreed to Senate Concurrent Resolution 29, which expressed the sense of the 111th Congress that Jack Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon for his racially motivated 1913 conviction: Now, therefore, be it That it remains the sense of Congress that Jack Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon— (1) to expunge a racially motivated abuse of the prosecutorial authority of the Federal Government from the annals of criminal justice in the United States; and (2) in recognition of the athletic and cultural contributions of Jack Johnson to society.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres21ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres21ih.xml

113-hconres-22

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 22 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 6, 2013 Mr. Holt submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Doctor Muhammad Yunus. 1. Use of rotunda for ceremony to award congressional gold medal to doctor muhammad yunus The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used on April 17, 2013, for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Doctor Muhammad Yunus in recognition of his contributions to the fight against global poverty. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres22ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres22ih.xml

113-hconres-23

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 23 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 13, 2013 Mr. Kelly (for himself, Mr. Westmoreland , Mr. Graves of Missouri , Mr. Griffith of Virginia , Mr. Duncan of South Carolina , Mr. Broun of Georgia , Mr. Marino , Mr. Carter , Mr. Huelskamp , Mr. Hultgren , Mrs. Hartzler , Mr. Michaud , Mr. Lamborn , Mr. Rahall , Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania , Mr. Griffin of Arkansas , Mr. Jones , Mr. Duncan of Tennessee , Mr. Young of Alaska , Mr. Bishop of Utah , Mr. Gosar , Mr. Reed , Mr. Barletta , Mr. Luetkemeyer , Mr. Pittenger , Mr. Olson , Mr. Smith of Nebraska , Mr. Huizenga of Michigan , Mr. Miller of Florida , Mr. Barton , Mr. Stivers , Mr. Johnson of Ohio , Mr. Gingrey of Georgia , Mr. Pompeo , Mr. Schweikert , Mr. Conaway , Mr. Burgess , Mr. Fleischmann , Mr. Weber of Texas , Mr. Rogers of Alabama , Mr. Nunnelee , Mr. Harris , Mr. Mullin , Mr. Yoder , Mr. Roe of Tennessee , Mr. Stockman , Mr. Franks of Arizona , Mr. Tiberi , Mr. Perry , Mrs. Capito , Mr. Thornberry , Mr. Brady of Texas , Mr. Marchant , Mrs. Blackburn , Mr. Fleming , Mr. Posey , Mr. Culberson , Mr. LaMalfa , Mr. Chabot , Mr. Stewart , Mr. Jordan , Mr. Mulvaney , Mr. McKinley , Mr. Wilson of South Carolina , Mr. Gardner , Mr. Nugent , Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia , Mr. Salmon , Mr. Flores , Mr. Wittman , Mr. Latta , Mrs. Ellmers , Ms. Jenkins , Mr. Meadows , Mr. Southerland , Mrs. Bachmann , Mr. Whitfield , Mr. Brooks of Alabama , Mr. Benishek , Mr. Pearce , Mr. Bucshon , Mr. Bridenstine , Mr. Calvert , Mr. Shimkus , Mr. Cotton , Mr. Daines , Mr. Gohmert , Mr. Ross , Mr. Amodei , Mr. Kline , Mr. Bilirakis , Mr. Forbes , Mr. Bentivolio , Mr. Walberg , Mr. Fincher , Mr. Boustany , Mr. Crawford , Mr. Palazzo , Mr. Poe of Texas , Mr. Scalise , Mr. DesJarlais , Mr. McCaul , Mr. Garrett , Mr. Womack , Mr. Yoho , Mr. Young of Florida , Mr. Messer , Mr. Radel , Mr. Lankford , Mr. Stutzman , Mr. Wenstrup , Mr. McClintock , Mrs. Wagner , Mr. Sessions , Mr. Farenthold , Mr. Long , Mr. DeSantis , Mr. Neugebauer , Mr. Rothfus , Mrs. Noem , Mr. Holding , Mr. King of Iowa , and Mr. Hunter ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or to any similar agreement on the arms trade. Whereas in October 2009, the United States voted in the United Nations General Assembly to participate in the negotiation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty; Whereas in July 2012, the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty convened to negotiate the text of the Arms Trade Treaty; Whereas in December 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted to hold a final negotiating conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in March 2013, on the basis of the text of July 2012; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality, recognizing their equal right to transfer arms, and is thereby dangerous to the security of the United States; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty’s criteria for assessing the potential consequences of arms transfers are vague, easily politicized, and readily manipulated; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty’s model for using these criteria is incompatible with the decisionmaking model for arms transfers employed by the United States under Presidential Decision Directive 34, which dates from 1995; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty will create opportunities to engage in lawfare against the United States via the misuse of the treaty’s criteria in foreign tribunals and international fora; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel; Whereas the creation of an international secretariat to administer and assist in the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty risks the delegation of authority to a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the people of the United States; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty urges the provision of capacity building assistance from signatory nations to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, which could create a source of permanent funding to a new international organization that would be susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse; Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty risks imposing costly regulatory burdens on United States businesses, for example, by creating onerous reporting requirements that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and related firms; Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has not been signed by the President and received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect as customary international law, jus cogens, or any other principle of international law that bypasses the treaty power in article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution; Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has merely been signed by the President but has not received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect, including any obligation to refrain from defeating the object and purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty, under any provision of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which the United States is not a party; Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has merely been signed by the President but has not received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect, as an international agreement other than a treaty, as a sole executive agreement, or in any other way; and Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has been signed by the President and has received the advice and consent of the Senate, is a non-self-executing treaty that has no domestic legal effect within the United States, unless and until it has been adopted by the enactment of implementing legislation by the Congress: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of Congress that— (1) the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and (2) until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by the Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres23ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres23ih.xml

113-hconres-24

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 24 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 14, 2013 Mr. Scalise (for himself, Mr. Aderholt , Mrs. Bachmann , Mr. Bachus , Mr. Barr , Mr. Barton , Mr. Bentivolio , Mr. Bishop of Utah , Mrs. Black , Mrs. Blackburn , Mr. Brady of Texas , Mr. Bridenstine , Mr. Broun of Georgia , Mr. Buchanan , Mr. Bucshon , Mr. Campbell , Mr. Carter , Mr. Cassidy , Mr. Chabot , Mr. Chaffetz , Mr. Collins of Georgia , Mr. Cotton , Mr. Cramer , Mr. Crawford , Mr. Culberson , Mr. Denham , Mr. DesJarlais , Mr. DeSantis , Mr. Duncan of South Carolina , Mrs. Ellmers , Mr. Farenthold , Mr. Fincher , Mr. Fleischmann , Mr. Fleming , Mr. Flores , Mr. Franks of Arizona , Mr. Gardner , Mr. Garrett , Mr. Gibbs , Mr. Gingrey of Georgia , Mr. Gohmert , Mr. Gosar , Mr. Graves of Missouri , Mr. Griffin of Arkansas , Mr. Hall , Mr. Hanna , Mr. Hensarling , Mr. Holding , Mr. Hudson , Mr. Huelskamp , Mr. Huizenga of Michigan , Mr. Issa , Ms. Jenkins , Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas , Mr. Jordan , Mr. Kelly , Mr. King of Iowa , Mr. Kline , Mr. LaMalfa , Mr. Lamborn , Mr. Lankford , Mr. Latta , Mr. Long , Mr. Luetkemeyer , Mrs. Lummis , Mr. Massie , Mr. McClintock , Mr. Meadows , Mr. Miller of Florida , Mr. Mullin , Mr. Mulvaney , Mrs. Noem , Mr. Neugebauer , Mr. Nugent , Mr. Nunnelee , Mr. Olson , Mr. Palazzo , Mr. Pearce , Mr. Pittenger , Mr. Pitts , Mr. Pompeo , Mr. Posey , Mr. Price of Georgia , Mr. Radel , Mr. Renacci , Mr. Ribble , Mr. Roe of Tennessee , Mr. Rokita , Mr. Rothfus , Mr. Salmon , Mr. Sessions , Mr. Shimkus , Mr. Smith of Texas , Mr. Stewart , Mr. Stivers , Mr. Stockman , Mr. Walberg , Mr. Weber of Texas , Mr. Wenstrup , Mr. Westmoreland , Mr. Williams , Mr. Wilson of South Carolina , Mr. Woodall , Mr. Yoder , and Mr. Young of Indiana ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy. Whereas a carbon tax is a Federal tax on carbon released from fossil fuels; Whereas a carbon tax will increase energy prices, including the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home heating oil; Whereas a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and electricity; Whereas a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes; Whereas a carbon tax will lead to more jobs and businesses moving overseas; Whereas a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth; Whereas American families will be harmed the most from a carbon tax; Whereas, according to the Energy Information Administration, in 2011, fossil fuels share of energy consumption was 82 percent; Whereas a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good manufactured in the United States; Whereas a carbon tax will impose disproportionate burdens on certain industries, jobs, States, and geographic regions and would further restrict the global competitiveness of the United States; Whereas American ingenuity has led to innovations in energy exploration and development and has increased production of domestic energy resources on private and State-owned land which has created significant job growth and private capital investment; Whereas United States energy policy should encourage continued private sector innovation and development and not increase the existing tax burden on manufacturers; Whereas the production of American energy resources increases the United States ability to maintain a competitive advantage in today’s global economy; Whereas a carbon tax would reduce America’s global competitiveness and would encourage development abroad in countries that do not impose this exorbitant tax burden; and Whereas the Congress and the President should focus on pro-growth solutions that encourage increased development of domestic resources: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres24ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres24ih.xml

113-hconres-25

III Calendar No. 33 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 25 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES March 22, 2013 Received and placed on the calendar CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023. 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. I Recommended levels and amounts 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. 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. II Reconciliation 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. III Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040, and 2050 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. IV Reserve funds 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. V Estimates of direct spending 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. VI Budget Enforcement 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. VII Policy statements 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. VIII Sense of the House provisions 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. Passed the House of Representatives March 21, 2013. Karen L. Haas, Clerk. March 22, 2013 Received and placed on the calendar

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres25pcs/xml/BILLS-113hconres25pcs.xml

113-hconres-26

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 26 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 19, 2013 Mr. Hunter (for himself, Mr. Becerra , Mr. Valadao , Mr. Turner , Mr. Jones , Mr. Grimm , Mr. Cárdenas , Mr. Vargas , Mr. Peters of California , Mrs. Napolitano , Mr. Cook , Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois , Mr. Gallego , Mr. Grijalva , Mr. Miller of Florida , Mr. Calvert , Mr. Guthrie , Mr. Wilson of South Carolina , Mr. Diaz-Balart , Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania , Mr. LaMalfa , Mr. Southerland , Mr. Denham , Mr. Amodei , Mr. Issa , Mrs. Roby , Mr. Runyan , and Mrs. Davis of California ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Recommending the posthumous award of the Medal of Honor to Sergeant Rafael Peralta. Whereas in November 2004, the Marine Corps led combat operations to retake the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, Iraq, as part of Operation Phantom Fury; Whereas Marine Corps Sergeant Rafael Peralta and thousands of other Marines entered the city of Fallujah, coming into immediate contact with the enemy and engaging in some of the most intense combat of the entire Iraq war; Whereas Sergeant Peralta, serving with 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, cleared scores of houses for days and on November 14, 2004, asked to join an under-strength squad; Whereas the following morning, as Sergeant Peralta and his squad of Marines cleared their seventh house of the day, a close-quarter firefight erupted; Whereas Sergeant Peralta, attempting to move out of the line of fire, was hit in the back of the head by a fragment from a ricocheted bullet; Whereas the insurgents, in the process of fleeing the house, threw a fragmentation grenade through a window, landing directly near the head of Sergeant Peralta; Whereas Sergeant Peralta reached for the grenade and pulled it into his body, absorbing the blast and shielding the other Marines who were only feet away; Whereas Sergeant Peralta, on November 15, 2004, made the ultimate sacrifice to save the lives of his fellow Marines; Whereas Sergeant Peralta was posthumously recommended by the Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy for the Medal of Honor; Whereas seven eyewitnesses confirmed that Sergeant Peralta smothered the grenade with his body, with four of the accounts, taken independently, stating that he gathered the grenade with his right arm; Whereas the historical standard for the Medal of Honor is two eyewitness accounts; Whereas in 2008, Sergeant Peralta’s Medal of Honor nomination was downgraded to the Navy Cross after an independent panel determined that Sergeant Peralta could not have deliberately pulled the grenade into his body due to his head wound, despite seven eyewitness accounts stating that he did so; Whereas in 2012, new and previously unconsidered evidence, consisting of combat video and an independent pathology report, was submitted to the Department of the Navy; Whereas based on the new evidence, a review of the case was initiated; Whereas in December 2012, despite an announcement of the Navy’s support for upgrading Sergeant Peralta’s Navy Cross to the Medal of Honor, the upgrade was declined; Whereas the citation for Sergeant Peralta’s Navy Cross states, “without hesitation and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, Sergeant Peralta reached out and pulled the grenade to his body, absorbing the brunt of the blast and shielding fellow Marines only feet away”; Whereas Sergeant Peralta wrote to his brother in the days preceding his death, saying, I’m proud to be a Marine, a U.S. Marine, and to defend and protect the freedom and Constitution of America. You should be proud of being an American citizen. ; Whereas Sergeant Peralta, who was born in Mexico and immigrated with his family to San Diego, California, enlisted in the Marine Corps on the same morning he received his proof of permanent residence, commonly known as a green card; and Whereas Sergeant Peralta and his fellow Marines are an inspiration for their service, selflessness, and sacrifice: Now, therefore, be it That Congress— (1) honors Sergeant Rafael Peralta, as a Mexican-American who joined the Marine Corps on the same day he received his permanent residence status, for his dedication to the Marine Corps and the United States and for upholding the highest standards of military service; (2) recognizes that Sergeant Peralta’s courageous and selfless actions in combat saved the lives of his fellow Marines; (3) concurs with the Marine Corps and the Department of the Navy that Sergeant Peralta’s actions are in the spirit and tradition of the Medal of Honor; (4) maintains that, consistent with previous Medal of Honor awards, the eyewitness accounts confirm that Sergeant Peralta deliberately pulled the grenade into his body and the eyewitness accounts should be the leading and deciding factor in evaluating Sergeant Peralta’s Medal of Honor nomination; and (5) recommends that Sergeant Peralta be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres26ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres26ih.xml

113-hconres-27

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 27 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 19, 2013 Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee , Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York , Mr. Rangel , Mr. Wolf , Mr. Connolly , Ms. Norton , Mr. Scott of Virginia , Mr. Cicilline , Mr. Walz , Mr. Bishop of New York , Mr. Cole , and Mr. Gerlach ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Supporting the formation of a bipartisan Presidential Commission to study the establishment of a National Museum of the American People. Whereas the United States was created and built by peoples from every land, and these people made this Nation the world’s economic, military, scientific, and cultural leader; Whereas Canada and Mexico, the nations bordering the United States, have major museums in or near their capital cities telling the story of the making of their peoples; Whereas the people of the United States do not have a comprehensive and accurate picture of all the peoples who created and continue to build the Nation; Whereas few foreigners know the story of the peoples who came to be citizens of the United States, nor the story of the people from their own nations who came to this land; Whereas a museum telling the story of the making of the people of the United States and celebrating all who migrated and settled in the present day United States, from the very first to the most recent, belongs near the National Mall in Washington, DC; Whereas the National Museum of the American People would serve as a resource to assist State, local, and ethnic museums throughout the Nation present exhibits that celebrate the heritage of the people of the United States; Whereas non-Federal sources will be sought to provide full funding for a Presidential Commission to study establishment of the Museum and that such sums will commence when the President signs an Executive order creating a bipartisan Presidential Commission; and Whereas non-Federal sources are anticipated to provide full funding to design and build the Museum, its exhibitions and its components: Now, therefore, be it That Congress supports the establishment of a bipartisan Presidential Commission to study the establishment of a National Museum of the American People to tell the immigration and migration stories of all people in the United States.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres27ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres27ih.xml

113-hconres-28

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 28 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 9, 2013 Ms. Frankel of Florida (for herself, Ms. DeLauro , Mr. Lewis , Mr. Van Hollen , Mr. Conyers , Ms. McCollum , Ms. Speier , Ms. Schakowsky , Ms. Chu , Ms. Schwartz , Ms. Tsongas , Mr. Grijalva , Ms. Kuster , Mr. Levin , Mr. Langevin , Mr. Cárdenas , Ms. Wasserman Schultz , Ms. Moore , Ms. Norton , Mr. Holt , Ms. Brown of Florida , Ms. Jackson Lee , Mr. Connolly , Ms. Sinema , Ms. Wilson of Florida , Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York , Ms. Lee of California , Mr. Cicilline , Mrs. Capps , Ms. Sewell of Alabama , Mr. Kildee , Mr. Nolan , Mrs. Negrete McLeod , Mr. Israel , Mr. Lynch , Ms. Waters , Ms. Edwards , Mr. Gallego , Ms. Fudge , Mr. Hastings of Florida , Ms. Bordallo , Ms. Hahn , Ms. Titus , Mr. Payne , Ms. Gabbard , Mr. Peters of California , Mr. Pocan , Mr. Larsen of Washington , Mr. McGovern , Mr. Pascrell , Mr. Castro of Texas , Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas , Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico , Ms. DelBene , Mr. Serrano , Mr. Lowenthal , Mr. Delaney , Ms. Matsui , Mr. Johnson of Georgia , Mr. Watt , Mr. Dingell , Mr. Moran , Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California , Ms. Castor of Florida , Ms. Meng , Mr. Tonko , Ms. Clarke , Mr. Welch , Ms. Pingree of Maine , Mr. Cohen , Mrs. Davis of California , Mr. Foster , Mr. Himes , Ms. Esty , Mr. Higgins , Mr. Schiff , Mrs. Lowey , Ms. Slaughter , Mr. Rangel , Mr. Sherman , Mr. Al Green of Texas , and Mr. Clay ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Recognizing the significance of Equal Pay Day to illustrate the disparity between wages paid to men and women. Whereas section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ( 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1) ) prohibits discrimination in compensation for equal work on the basis of sex; Whereas title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) prohibits discrimination in compensation because of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex; Whereas five decades after the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ( 29 U.S.C. 206 note), the Bureau of the Census estimates that women working full time, year round are paid an overall average of 77 cents for every dollar paid to men, while Asian-American women working full time, year round are paid 78 cents, African-American women working full time, year round are paid 64 cents, and Hispanic women working full time, year round are paid 55 cents compared to White, non-Hispanic men; Whereas sex discrimination in hiring and promotion has played a role in maintaining a work force segregated by sex; Whereas wage differentials that exist between equivalent jobs segregated by sex—(1) depress wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency; (2) reduce family incomes and contribute to the higher poverty rates among women and female-headed households; (3) prevent the maximum utilization of the available labor resources; (4) tend to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce; and (5) constitute an unfair method of competition; Whereas opening traditionally male jobs to women and reducing occupational segregation by sex increases earnings for women; Whereas when women are paid fairly, families are stronger, business prospers, and American values and the economy are strengthened; Whereas fair pay strengthens the security of families and enhances retirement; Whereas nearly two-thirds of workers paid the minimum wage are women and the concentration of women in low-wage jobs is a significant contributor to the wage gap; Whereas nearly 50 percent of employers either prohibit or strongly discourage workers from discussing their pay, which keeps women from learning when they are the victims of pay discrimination and remedying that discrimination; Whereas April 9, 2013, is Equal Pay Day, marking the day that symbolizes how far into 2013 women must work until their pay from 2012 equals what men were paid in 2012 alone; and Whereas numerous national organizations have designated Tuesday, April 9, 2013, as Equal Pay Day to represent the additional time that women must work to compensate for the average 23 percent lower wages paid to women last year: Now, therefore, be it That Congress recognizes the significance of Equal Pay Day to illustrate the disparity between wages paid to men and women.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres28ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres28ih.xml

113-hconres-29

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 29 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 10, 2013 Mr. McCaul (for himself and Mr. Andrews ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should resume normal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and for other purposes. Whereas the people of Taiwan have established a vibrant and pluralistic democracy only 20 years ago; Whereas since then, the people of Taiwan have conducted five successful presidential elections, successive elections for members of their national legislature, numerous local elections, and two national referendums; Whereas Taiwan has never been under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China, which continues to illegitimately claim sovereignty over Taiwan and its 23,000,000 citizens; Whereas the Shanghai Communique, which maintains that there is “One China” and that “Taiwan is part of China”, was established without the consultation of Congress or the people of Taiwan; Whereas the People’s Republic of China has since used the “One China Policy” to block Taiwan's membership and full participation in international organizations and events, ranging from the United Nations and the World Health Organization to the Olympics; Whereas the “One China Policy” is effectively obsolete, and does not the reflect the obvious reality that Taiwan has functioned as an independent and sovereign country for over half a century; Whereas the only other countries in the world with which the United States does not have diplomatic relations are Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea; Whereas Taiwan maintains diplomatic, cultural, and economic relations with several countries around the world; Whereas Taiwan and the United States maintained formal diplomatic relations until 1979; Whereas former President Jimmy Carter severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979 and terminated the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and Taiwan without consulting or seeking the approval of Congress; Whereas Congress responded later that year by adopting the Taiwan Relations Act, codifying in law the basis for continued friendly relations between the United States and Taiwan; Whereas former President Ronald Reagan issued the “Six Assurances” to Taiwan in July 1982, including the assurance that “[t]he United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.”; Whereas both the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances form the cornerstone of United States-Taiwan relations; and Whereas Taiwan has been a steadfast ally of the United States and a responsible and compassionate member of the world community: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of Congress that— (1) the President should abandon the fundamentally flawed “One China Policy” in favor of a more realistic “One China, One Taiwan Policy” that recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign and independent country, separate from the undemocratic Government of the People’s Republic of China in Beijing; (2) the President should begin the process of resuming normal diplomatic relations with Taiwan; and (3) the President, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, and other relevant United States officials should aggressively support Taiwan's full participation in the United Nations and any other international organization of which the United States is a member, and for which statehood is a requirement for membership.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres29ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres29ih.xml

113-hconres-30

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 30 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 10, 2013 Mr. Radel (for himself, Ms. Meng , Mr. King of New York , and Mr. Schneider ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel. Whereas, on May 14, 1948, the State of Israel declared its independence; Whereas the United States was one of the first nations to recognize Israel, only 11 minutes after its creation; Whereas Israel has provided the opportunity for Jews from all over the world to reestablish their ancient homeland; Whereas Israel is home to many religious sites sacred to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Whereas Israel provided a refuge to Jews who survived the unprecedented horrors of the Holocaust; Whereas the people of Israel have established a pluralistic democracy which includes the freedoms cherished by the people of the United States, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and government by the consent of the governed; Whereas Israel continues to serve as a shining model of democratic values by regularly holding free and fair elections, promoting the free exchange of ideas, and vigorously exercising in its Parliament, the Knesset, a democratic government that is fully representative of its citizens; Whereas Israel has bravely defended itself from terrorist and military attacks repeatedly since independence; Whereas the rocket attacks that have targeted Israel in recent years have caused casualties and have destroyed homes, schools, buildings, roads, power lines, and other significant infrastructure; Whereas Israel has signed landmark peace treaties and successfully established peaceful bilateral relations with neighboring Egypt and Jordan; Whereas it is imperative for all countries in the Middle East, and for United States interests in the Middle East, that these peace treaties continue to be recognized and upheld by all involved parties; Whereas despite the violence perpetrated against innocent Israelis over the last several years at the hands of terrorists, the people of Israel continue to seek peace with their Palestinian neighbors; Whereas Iran, which rejects Israel's right to exist as a nation, is a continued threat to both Israel’s and the United States safety and security, both through its support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and through its ongoing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons; Whereas the United States is committed to ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge; Whereas the United States and Israel enjoy a strategic partnership based on shared democratic values, friendship, respect, and justice; Whereas the people of the United States share an affinity with the people of Israel and view Israel as a strong and trusted ally; Whereas Israel has turned barren desert into a thriving country that ranks among the world’s leaders in economics, technology, health care, energy, and humanitarianism; Whereas Israel has made significant global contributions in the fields of science, medicine, and technology; and Whereas Israel's Independence Day on the Jewish calendar coincides this year with April 16, 2013: Now, therefore, be it That Congress— (1) recognizes the independence of the State of Israel as a significant event in providing refuge and a national homeland for the Jewish people and in establishing a democracy in the Middle East; (2) commends the bipartisan commitment of successive United States administrations and United States Congresses since 1948 to stand by Israel and work for its security and well-being; (3) asserts its commitment to continue to stand with Israel during times of uncertainty; (4) expresses support for Israel's right to exist as a democratic, Jewish State, defend itself, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people; (5) congratulates the United States and Israel for the strengthening of bilateral relations during the past decade in the fields of defense, diplomacy, and homeland security, and encourages both nations to continue their cooperation in resolving future mutual challenges; (6) reaffirms its unequivocal, enduring, and bipartisan support for the alliance and friendship between the United States and Israel; and (7) extends warm congratulations and best wishes to the people of Israel as they celebrate the 65th anniversary of Israel's independence.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres30ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres30ih.xml

113-hconres-31

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 31 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 15, 2013 Mr. Runyan (for himself and Mr. Schneider ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Supporting Rare Pituitary Disease Awareness. Whereas rare pituitary diseases are those which affect small patient populations, typically populations smaller than 2–3 cases per million individuals in the United States; Whereas many rare pituitary diseases are serious, life-threatening, and have limited treatment options; Whereas rare pituitary diseases and conditions include but are not limited to both Cushing's disease and Acromegaly; Whereas people with rare pituitary disease experience challenges such as difficulty in obtaining an accurate diagnosis, limited treatment options, difficulty finding physicians or treatment centers with expertise in their disease, diminished quality of life and physical function if untreated; Whereas there is a high need for medical education that will address the specific needs of patients with rare pituitary diseases, increase the speed of diagnosis and a number of correctly diagnosed patients; Whereas there have been great strides made in research and treatment due to the Orphan Drug Act of 1983; Whereas Rare Pituitary Disease Awareness helps to increase public awareness and understanding of rare pituitary diseases; Whereas there are a number of rare disease awareness initiatives for various rare conditions recognized on both State and Federal levels but none for rare pituitary disorders; Whereas Rare Pituitary Disease Awareness is anticipated to be observed globally in years to come, to provide hope and information for patients afflicted by Cushing's disease, Acromegaly and other pituitary diseases around the world; and Whereas both the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have established special offices to advocate for rare disease research and treatments: Now, therefore, be it That the Congress— (1) supports Rare Pituitary Disease Awareness; (2) recognizes the importance of improving awareness and encouraging accurate and early diagnosis of Cushing's disease, Acromegaly and other rare pituitary diseases; and (3) supports a substantial national commitment to improving diagnostics and cures for rare pituitary diseases and quality of life for patients afflicted by these rare conditions.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres31ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres31ih.xml

113-hconres-32

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 32 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 18, 2013 Mr. Barletta (for himself and Ms. Norton ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition. 1. Use of the Capitol Grounds for National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition (a) In general The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as the sponsor ) shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition (in this resolution referred to as the event ), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to allow law enforcement representatives to exhibit their ability to demonstrate Honor Guard programs and provide for a bag pipe exhibition. (b) Date of event The event shall be held on May 14, 2013, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 2. Terms and conditions (a) In general Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be— (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress. (b) Expenses and liabilities The sponsor shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event. 3. Event preparations Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment, as may be required for the event. 4. Enforcement of restrictions The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres32ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres32ih.xml

113-hconres-33

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 33 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 18, 2013 Mr. Engel (for himself, Mr. Cicilline , Mr. Polis , Mr. Pocan , Ms. Ros-Lehtinen , Mr. Farr , Mr. Grijalva , Mr. Lowenthal , Mr. Ellison , Mr. Hastings of Florida , Ms. Hahn , Mr. Markey , Ms. DeGette , Mr. Connolly , Ms. Wilson of Florida , Mr. Crowley , Mr. Moran , Mr. Higgins , Ms. McCollum , Mr. Tonko , Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania , Mr. Quigley , Ms. Schakowsky , Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York , Ms. Wasserman Schultz , Mr. Rangel , Mr. McGovern , Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York , Mr. Takano , Ms. Moore , Ms. Norton , Ms. Speier , Mrs. Capps , Ms. Linda T. Sánchez of California , Ms. Kuster , Mrs. Davis of California , Mr. Serrano , Mr. Smith of Washington , Mr. Gutierrez , Mr. Deutch , Mr. Nadler , Ms. Meng , Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas , Ms. Chu , Mr. Honda , Mr. Andrews , Ms. Titus , Ms. Lofgren , Mr. Al Green of Texas , Ms. Lee of California , and Mr. Holt ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce , and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary , for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Day of Silence in bringing attention to anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender name-calling, bullying, and harassment faced by individuals in schools. Whereas the National Day of Silence is a day in which students take a vow of silence to bring attention to the anti- lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender name-calling, bullying, and harassment faced by individuals in schools; Whereas the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network designates one day of every April as the National Day of Silence; Whereas hundreds of thousands of students at more than 8,000 schools have participated in the National Day of Silence in past years; Whereas the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s 2011 National School Climate Survey illustrates the pervasive harassment and victimization faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students by documenting their experiences within the preceding academic year; Whereas nearly 82 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students reported being verbally harassed by their peers at school because of their sexual orientation, and more than 60 percent because of their gender expression; Whereas more than 38 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students reported being physically harassed by their peers at school because of their sexual orientation, and nearly 30 percent because of their gender expression; Whereas nearly 20 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students reported being physically assaulted by their peers at school because of their sexual orientation, and nearly 12.4 percent because of their gender expression; Whereas more than 60 percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students reported that they felt unsafe in school, and nearly 30 percent reported missing at least one entire school day in the preceding month because of safety concerns; Whereas transgender students were more likely than all other students to report feeling unsafe at school because of their gender expression; Whereas, according to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, those who expressed a transgender identity or gender nonconformity while in grades K through 12 reported alarming rates of harassment, physical assault, and sexual violence so severe that almost 15 percent of those surveyed had to leave school; Whereas student academic performance is affected such that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students who experienced high levels of verbal harassment because of their sexual orientation or gender expression report a grade point average nearly a half grade lower than those of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students who experienced low levels of such harassment; Whereas the presence of supportive staff contributed to a range of positive indicators including fewer reports of missing school, fewer reports of feeling unsafe, greater academic achievement, higher educational aspirations, and a greater sense of school belonging; Whereas a growing number of States, cities, and local education authorities are adopting laws and policies to prohibit name-calling, bullying, harassment, and discrimination against students on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression; and Whereas every child should be guaranteed an education free from name-calling, bullying, harassment, and discrimination regardless of his or her sexual orientation and gender identity or expression: Now, therefore, be it That Congress— (1) supports the goals and ideals of the National Day of Silence; (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe the National Day of Silence with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities; and (3) encourages each State, city, and local educational agency to adopt laws and policies to prohibit name-calling, bullying, harassment, and discrimination against students, teachers, and other school staff regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, so that the Nation’s schools are institutions where all individuals are able to focus on learning.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres33ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres33ih.xml

113-hconres-34

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 34 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 18, 2013 Mr. Cicilline (for himself, Mr. Barber , Mrs. Beatty , Ms. Bonamici , Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania , Mr. Braley of Iowa , Ms. Brown of Florida , Mrs. Bustos , Mr. Cárdenas , Mr. Cartwright , Mrs. Christensen , Ms. Chu , Mr. Clay , Mr. Conyers , Mr. Cummings , Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois , Mr. DeFazio , Mr. Deutch , Ms. Edwards , Mr. Ellison , Mr. Enyart , Ms. Frankel of Florida , Ms. Fudge , Mr. Garamendi , Mr. Grayson , Mr. Gene Green of Texas , Mr. Grijalva , Mr. Gutierrez , Ms. Hahn , Ms. Hanabusa , Mr. Hastings of Florida , Mr. Higgins , Mr. Holt , Mr. Honda , Mr. Huffman , Ms. Jackson Lee , Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas , Mr. Johnson of Georgia , Ms. Kaptur , Mr. Kildee , Mrs. Kirkpatrick , Mr. Langevin , Ms. Lee of California , Mr. Lewis , Mr. Loebsack , Mr. Lowenthal , Mr. Lynch , Mr. Maffei , Mr. Markey , Ms. Matsui , Mr. McDermott , Mr. McGovern , Mr. Michaud , Ms. Moore , Mr. Nadler , Mrs. Napolitano , Mr. Nolan , Ms. Norton , Mr. Payne , Mr. Peters of Michigan , Ms. Pingree of Maine , Mr. Pocan , Ms. Roybal-Allard , Mr. Ruiz , Mr. Rush , Mr. Ryan of Ohio , Ms. Schakowsky , Mr. Serrano , Ms. Shea-Porter , Mr. Sires , Ms. Speier , Mr. Takano , Mr. Thompson of Mississippi , Mr. Tonko , Mr. Vargas , Mr. Veasey , Mr. Vela , Ms. Velázquez , Ms. Waters , Mr. Welch , Ms. Wilson of Florida , and Mr. Scott of Virginia ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security benefits. Whereas the Social Security program was established more than 77 years ago and has provided economic security to generations of Americans through benefits earned based on contributions made over a worker’s lifetime; Whereas the Social Security program continues to provide modest benefits—averaging approximately $14,000 per year—to more than 53,000,000 individuals, including 37,000,000 retired workers in February 2013; Whereas the Social Security program has no borrowing authority, has accumulated assets of $2,700,000,000,000, and, therefore, does not contribute to the Federal budget deficit; Whereas the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund projects that such Trust Fund can pay full benefits through 2032; Whereas the Social Security program is designed to ensure that benefits keep pace with inflation through cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that are based upon the measured changes in prices of goods and services purchased by consumers, currently the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI–W) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; Whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a supplemental measure of inflation, the Chained Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (C–CPI–U), or Chained CPI , which adjusts for projected changes in consumer behavior resulting from price fluctuations known as the substitution effect , which occurs when consumers buy more goods and services whose prices are rising slower than average and less of those rising faster than average; Whereas studies indicate typical Social Security beneficiaries spend significantly greater shares of their budget than consumers generally on health care, prices for which have increased at higher than average rates, and health care may not be easily substituted for by consumers such as seniors; Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would reduce Social Security benefits by 0.25 percent per year as compared to current policy, resulting in a reduction in outlays of $112,000,000,000 over the first decade; Whereas reductions in Social Security benefits from using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would continue to compound over time, and the AARP Public Policy Institute estimates that such reductions would grow to 3 percent after 10 years and 8.5 percent after 30 years; Whereas Social Security Works estimates that using the Chained CPI to calculate Social Security COLAs would reduce annual Social Security benefits of the average earner—who is making $43,518—by $658 at age 75, $1,147 at age 85, and $1,622 at age 95; and Whereas reductions in Social Security benefits would harm some of our most vulnerable populations: Now, therefore, be it That it is the sense of the Congress that the Chained Consumer Price Index should not be used to calculate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres34ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres34ih.xml

113-hconres-35

IV 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. CON. RES. 35 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 23, 2013 Mr. Crenshaw (for himself and Mr. Meeks ) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Supporting the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day. Whereas April 25th of each year is recognized internationally as World Malaria Day; Whereas malaria is a leading cause of death and disease in many developing countries, despite being preventable and treatable; Whereas fighting malaria is in the national security interest of the United States, as reducing the risk of malaria protects members of the Armed Forces of the United States serving overseas in malaria-endemic regions, and reducing malaria deaths helps to lower risks of instability in less developed countries; Whereas support for efforts to fight malaria is in the diplomatic and moral interest of the United States, as that support generates goodwill toward the United States and highlights the values of the people of the United States through the work of governmental, non-governmental, and faith-based organizations of the United States; Whereas efforts to fight malaria are in the long-term economic interest of the United States because those efforts help developing countries identify at-risk populations, provide better health services, produce healthier and more productive workforces, advance economic development, and promote stronger trading partners; Whereas 35 countries, the majority of which are in sub-Saharan Africa, account for 91 percent of malaria deaths in the world; Whereas young children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to and disproportionately affected by malaria; Whereas malaria greatly affects child health, as children under the age of 5 account for an estimated 86 percent of malaria deaths each year; Whereas malaria poses great risks to maternal and neonatal health, causing complications during delivery, anemia, and low birth weights, with estimates that malaria infection causes approximately 400,000 cases of severe maternal anemia and between 75,000 and 200,000 infant deaths annually in sub-Saharan Africa; Whereas heightened national, regional, and international efforts to prevent and treat malaria during recent years have made significant progress and helped save hundreds of thousands of lives; Whereas the World Malaria Report 2012 by the World Health Organization states that in 2011, approximately 53 percent of households in sub-Saharan Africa owned at least one insecticide-treated mosquito net, and household surveys indicated that 90 percent of people used an insecticide-treated mosquito net if one was available in the household; Whereas, in 2011, approximately 153,000,000 people were protected by indoor residual spraying; Whereas the World Malaria Report 2012 further states that between 2000 and 2010— (1) malaria mortality rates decreased by 26 percent around the world; (2) in the African Region of the World Health Organization, malaria mortality rates decreased by 33 percent; and (3) an estimated 1,100,000 malaria deaths were averted globally, primarily as a result of increased interventions; Whereas the World Malaria Report 2012 further states that out of 99 countries with ongoing transmission of malaria in 2012, 11 countries are classified as being in the pre-elimination phase of malaria control, 10 countries are classified as being in the elimination phase, and 5 countries are classified as being in the prevention of introduction phase; Whereas continued national, regional, and international investment in efforts to eliminate malaria, including prevention and treatment efforts, the development of a vaccine to immunize children from the malaria parasite, and advancements in insecticides, are critical in order to continue to reduce malaria deaths, prevent backsliding in areas where progress has been made, and equip the United States and the global community with the tools necessary to fight malaria and other global health threats; Whereas the United States Government has played a leading role in the recent progress made toward reducing the global burden of malaria, particularly through the President’s Malaria Initiative and the contribution of the United States to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; Whereas, in May 2011, an independent, external evaluation, prepared through the Global Health Technical Assistance Project, examining 6 objectives of the President’s Malaria Initiative, found the President’s Malaria Initiative to be a successful, well-led component of the Global Health Initiative that has earned and deserves the task of sustaining and expanding the United States Government’s response to global malaria control efforts ; Whereas the United States Government is pursuing a comprehensive approach to ending malaria deaths through the President’s Malaria Initiative, which is led by the United States Agency for International Development and implemented with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, and private sector entities; Whereas the President’s Malaria Initiative focuses on helping partner countries achieve major improvements in overall health outcomes through improved access to, and quality of, healthcare services in locations with limited resources; and Whereas the President’s Malaria Initiative, recognizing the burden of malaria on many partner countries, has set a target of reducing the burden of malaria by 50 percent for 450,000,000 people, representing 70 percent of the at-risk population in Africa, by 2015: Now, therefore, be it That the Congress— (1) supports the goals and ideals of World Malaria Day, including the target of ending malaria deaths by 2015; (2) recognizes the importance of reducing malaria prevalence and deaths to improve overall child and maternal health, especially in sub-Saharan Africa; (3) commends the recent progress made toward reducing global malaria morbidity, mortality, and prevalence, particularly through the efforts of the President’s Malaria Initiative and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; (4) welcomes ongoing public-private partnerships to research and develop more effective and affordable tools for malaria diagnosis, treatment, and vaccination; (5) recognizes the goals, priorities, and authorities to combat malaria set forth in the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 ( Public Law 110–293 ; 122 Stat. 2918); (6) supports continued leadership by the United States in bilateral, multilateral, and private sector efforts to combat malaria and to work with developing countries to create long-term strategies to increase ownership over malaria programs; and (7) encourages other members of the international community to sustain and increase their support for and financial contributions to efforts to combat malaria worldwide.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-113hconres35ih/xml/BILLS-113hconres35ih.xml