2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE 5
LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN HERN AND THE BUDGET AND SPENDING TASK FORCE

PAGE 7
ENSURING LIBERTY THROUGH DEREGULATION

PAGE 19
CREATING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH TAX REFORM

PAGE 27
OPPORTUNITY THROUGH EMPOWERMENT AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY

PAGE 37
PROVIDING FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

PAGE 57
PROTECTING CONSERVATIVE VALUES

PAGE 67
PERSONALIZED AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE

PAGE 75
SAVING MEDICARE

PAGE 79
REFORMING DISABILITY INSURANCE

PAGE 85
PREVENTING BIDEN’S CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY

3
 PAGE 91
BUDGET PROCESS REFORM

PAGE 99
OTHER MANDATORY SPENDING

PAGE 115
NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

PAGE 129
APPENDIX – SUMMARY TABLES

PAGE 135
ENDNOTES

4
 June 14, 2023

Fellow Americans,
It has never been more evident just how devastating the impact of excessive spending and unsustainable debt is to
the American people. The United States is over $31 trillion in debt, retirement programs are crumbling, and the
American economy stands on shaky ground. Every day, hardworking taxpayers confront skyrocketing prices for gas,
groceries, and other necessities. Inflation has led to record interest rate hikes that have brought the country to the
brink of another financial crisis and made borrowing unaffordable for millions. For countless families and businesses
across the nation, the American dream has become out of reach.
While cutting spending is difficult, most Americans would support those actions rather than continue with Biden’s
inflation crisis and higher interest rates. Years of inaction and overspending have put us in this position. The RSC
Budget offers a path to economic security by reducing tax and regulatory burdens, eliminating over $16 trillion in
wasteful spending, and balancing the federal budget in seven years.
The RSC Budget is more than just a financial statement. It is a statement of priorities. In addition to balancing, the
RSC Budget seeks to address the most pressing issues confronting our nation. It advances reforms to restore
operational control of the southern border. It takes aim at eliminating funding streams that advance the Left’s woke
ideology. It is the most pro-life Congressional Budget ever published. It counters Biden’s Green New Deal
regulations and would make the United States energy independent again. It would eliminate the last vestiges of the
oppressive pandemic policies advanced by the Left. It recognizes that our rights, which begin with the right to life
itself, come from God not government.
The RSC Budget also protects seniors from President Biden’s 23 percent across-the-board cuts to Social Security.
These devastating cuts, which will occur if Congress and the White House do nothing, would leave millions of
seniors unable to make ends meet and steal their ability to live with dignity and independence. These are the facts:
First, President Biden would raise Medicare taxes; the RSC Budget would reduce Medicare premiums; Second,
Biden’s Budget would result in a 23 percent cut to Social Security retirement benefits; Third, the reforms in the RSC
Budget would not affect benefits for any senior in or near retirement and would prevent insolvency for the next
decade; and Fourth, every reform in the RSC Budget to a federal retirement program is based on a bipartisan
proposal, including some President Biden voted for in the Senate.
While neither party is without blame for the nation’s dire financial situation, President Biden stands head and
shoulders above the D.C. establishment for his demagoguery and hypocrisy. Over the last year President Biden has
hurled endless attacks and blatant falsehoods about past RSC Budgets for seeking to constrain spending, fight
inflation, and save federal retirement programs. He believes the American people are not smart enough to see
through his lies. We know he is wrong.

_________________________ _________________________
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)
Chairman, Republican Study Committee Chairman, Budget and Spending Task Force

5
6
7
Overregulation suppresses economic growth and job creation while needlessly increasing bureaucratic
control over the everyday lives of citizens. The regulatory state economically cripples American families
through inflation, reduced wages, fewer jobs, scarcity of goods, and less access to capital. Put simply,
overregulation makes it harder to buy necessities like gas and groceries, go to school, buy a home, or start a
small business.[1]

Since taking office, President Biden has implemented a radical and far-reaching regulatory agenda.
According to the American Action Forum, “At its halfway point, the Biden Administration’s regulatory burden
totals vastly exceed those of its two immediate predecessors and have done so across a markedly lower
volume of rules, with $318 billion in total costs and more than 218 million hours of paperwork.”[2] This
includes resurrecting the disastrous Obama-era Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that will hammer
family farms,[3] a new $180 billion Green New Deal emissions regulation that will make vehicles significantly
more expensive,[4] and new regulations on investing to appease woke special interests and force Americans
to provide funding for inefficient and unreliable “green” energy sources. While conservatives are happy that
the Supreme Court has blocked this short-sighted and dangerous regulation,[5] conservatives must ensure
that the liberal activists at the EPA can never implement a similar regulation in the future by enacting a
congressional definition of navigable waters.

The RSC Budget would take bold and necessary action to rein in the Biden Administration’s dangerous
regulatory regime and return to the example set by former President Donald Trump and former OMB
Director Russ Vought, who previously served as the Executive Director for the RSC, and whose deregulatory
successes helped drive the most economically prosperous period in American history. In addition to rolling
back Obama-era regulations, the Vought-led OMB implemented policies that were designed to place
guardrails on the institution of new regulations. For instance, the Administration took the following actions:
● On President Trump’s first day in office, the White House issued a memorandum freezing all of the
Obama Administration’s pending regulations, halting $181 billion in pending rules.[6]
● On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order on Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs requiring all agencies to identify two existing regulations to repeal for
each new regulation it proposes.[7]
● On February 24, 2017, President Trump issued a follow-up executive order also designed to rein in
overregulation.[8] This order required heads of agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Office (RRO)
to oversee regulatory reform initiatives and form a task force within each agency to develop a
regulatory reform plan.
● On June 14, 2019, President Trump issued Executive Order 13875, which was designed to reduce the
number of federal advisory committees.
● On October 9, 2019, President Trump issued Executive Order 13891, which was designed to make
agency guidance documents transparent and required agencies to solicit input from the public and
conduct analysis before issuing certain guidance documents.
● On October 9, 2019, President Trump issued Executive Order 13892, which strengthened public
reporting and transparency requirements on major federal regulatory action.
● On October 10, 2019, President Trump issued Executive Order 13893, which ensured that federal
agencies offered cost-cutting proposals along with any proposed action that would result in
increased federal spending.

8
Congressional Deregulation Proposals
The RSC Budget adopts regulatory reforms that build off proposals that were included in the RSC
Government Efficiency Accountability and Reform (GEAR) Task Force’s report: “Power, Practices, Personnel:
100+ Commonsense Solutions to A Better Government.”[9] That task force was led by former Rep. Greg
Gianforte (R-MT), who now serves as Governor of the State of Montana. The RSC Budget supports the
following legislation to restore the appropriate balance of power:

Transparency
● Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s (R-MO) Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, which would
require each agency to include a 100-word, plain-language summary of a proposed rule in a notice of
rulemaking.
● Rep. James Comer’s (R-KY) Guidance Out of Darkness (GOOD) Act, which would set transparency
requirements on regulatory dark matter, a term that refers to the countless agency actions, such as
guidance, memoranda, and bulletins, that receive little to no public scrutiny in their development yet
often hold the weight of law.
● Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) Alert Act, which would require monthly disclosures from agencies about the
rules they expect to finalize or propose in a given year.
● Similar to Rep. Victoria Spartz’ (R-IN) Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act,
Congress should increase transparency of sue-and-settle proceedings and prevent the creation of de
facto regulations emerging through this process. These settlements are often negotiated behind
closed doors. The results of these proceedings often have the same effect as creating a new
regulation but without public participation.[10]
● Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) Health Agency Checkup Act, which would examine reporting and regulatory
practices at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill would call for recommendations to eliminate administrative
burdens and reduce politically driven decision making at these agencies, which unfortunately has
become a very common practice during the COVID-19 era.

Containing and Measuring Regulatory Costs

● Rep. Ashley Hinson’s (R-IA) Red Tape Reduction Act, which would reinstitute President Trump’s
deregulatory executive orders.[11]
● The Lessening Regulatory Costs and Establishing a Federal Regulatory Budget Act, which would
also build off President Trump’s deregulatory legacy to require the elimination of two regulations for
every new regulation. It would ensure that the total cost of regulations do not increase by requiring
agencies to appoint a Regulatory Reform Officer to oversee regulatory reform initiatives and establish
a Regulatory Reform Task Force to review the agency’s regulations.
● Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) Article I Regulatory Budget Act, which would create a regulatory budget,
similar to a fiscal budget. Congress would establish annual caps on the costs executive branch
agencies could impose on the economy through new regulations.
● Rep. Beth Van Duyne’s (R-TX) Regulatory Accountability Act, which would require agencies to
choose the least costly method of regulation available to them.
● Rep. Byron Donalds’ (R-FL) Unnecessary Agency Reductions Act, which would empower Congress to
review outdated and duplicative regulations for consolidation or repeal.

9
 ● RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Ben Cline’s (R-VA) Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Improvements Act, which would expand the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to strengthen
requirements that agencies account for the impact on small businesses in their rulemaking.
● Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer’s (R-KY) Fair and Open Competition Act (FOCA)
Act, which prohibits federal construction contracts from requiring union favoritism through Project
Labor Agreements (PLAs).

Checking Executive Authority

● Rep. Kat Cammack’s (R-FL) Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act),
which would require Congress to approve any regulations that have an annual economic impact of
$100 million or more.
● Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) Separation of Powers Restoration Act, which would scale back “Chevron
deference” to federal agencies by requiring de novo review of agency actions for all relevant
questions of law, including constitutional and statutory interpretation.
● Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) Article I Restoration Act, which would sunset all regulations after 3 years.
● Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) Federal Agency Sunset Commission Act, which would create a
commission to review the role and operations of every federal agency and report to Congress on
recommendations for merging, reorganizing, or abolishing such agencies. Congress would then have
the responsibility to act on these recommendations.

Regulatory Process Reforms

● Rep. Kelly Armstrong’s (R-ND) Federal Permitting Reform and Jobs Act, which would reduce the
burdens of NEPA and would produce firm timelines for agency action on permit applications.
● Rep. Tom McClintock’s (R-CA) Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, which
would require regular use of best science to delist and list animals under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
● Rep. Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) Critical Habitat Improvement Act, which would require scientific
grounding for the listing of a habitat under ESA.
● Senator Dan Sullivan’s (R-AK) Require Evaluation before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act
(REVIEW) Act, which would require a federal agency to postpone the effective start date of any
high-impact rule for either 60 days or the period delineated by the authorizing statute pending
judicial review.
● Rep. Virginia Foxx’s (R-VA) Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which would
provide greater transparency regarding the costs of federal mandates by closing statutory loopholes
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act framework. It would require CBO to score unfunded mandates
proposed by independent agencies and ensure that all rules with potentially major mandates are
subject to UMRA, not just those with a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

The RSC Budget also supports several other common-sense, conservative reforms needed to restore the
appropriate balance of power, including the following:
● RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Ben Cline’s (R-VA) Ensuring Accountability in
Agency Rulemaking Act, which would require rules be signed and issued by an individual appointed

10
 by the President and confirmed by the Senate, rather than anonymous and unaccountable
bureaucrats.
● Rep. Scott Fitzgerald’s (R-WI) Separation of Powers Restoration Act, which would rein in the
executive branch by scaling back Chevron deference and place judicial review back in the hands of
the judiciary through making clear the lines between judicial interpretation of law and executive
enforcement of the law.
● Ensure that the creation of all federal rules utilize empirical evidence-based and scientific-based data
to draw conclusions in a transparent process instead of leaning on the ideological bias of regulators.
● Require all regulatory submissions to be made through OMB’s Office of Information on Regulatory
Affairs.
● Clarify, standardize, and synchronize the definitions of different types of rules (i.e., significant, major,
economically significant across all regulatory regimes).
● Require judicial review of regulatory impact analysis data.
● Place limitations on federal injunctive authority, ensuring that a regional federal court could not
arbitrarily implement a nation-wide injunction.
● Reform the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to ensure that it can be used to nullify regulatory dark
matter and rules that were improperly produced.[12]
● Continue to implement federal efficiency proposals from OMB’s “Delivering Government Solutions in
the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations,” issued June 21, 2018.[13]
● Require the federal government to have a “yellow pages test.” If a good or service can be found in the
“yellow pages,” government should not be doing it.[14]

Oppose Socialistic Overregulation Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 is now considered endemic and the mortality rates from the disease are significantly smaller from
the first form of the virus detected in the United States.[15] Put another way, the pandemic is over, and it is
beyond time to return to normal. Unfortunately, Democrats are struggling to admit this plain truth. In fact, no
Democrat in the House of Representatives voted to end the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE)
declared by HHS[16] and only 11 voted to end the COVID-19 national emergency declared by the
President.[17] Despite this, and formal opposition from the Biden Administration to these legislative efforts,
the Senate voted to terminate the COVID national emergency on March 29, 2023. Perhaps symbolic of the
Left’s hesitation to move on from COVID, the Biden Administration has conceded that they will sign this
resolution into law, despite their opposition to it. Similarly, Democrats continue to defend failed federal
lockdowns that cost millions of jobs and closed 200,000 businesses.[18] Similarly, they refuse to acknowledge
the damage done by distance learning schemes that sent National Assessment of Educational Progress
reading and math scores to their lowest levels since the early 2000’s.[19]

Since Democrats continue to defend failed COVID policies that increased the scope of government, killed
businesses, led to mandates that undermined personal health autonomy, learning loss, and failed to reduce
mortality from COVID the RSC Budget supports efforts to permanently rollback unjustified and unlawful
expansions of government and bring back the stolen livelihoods of millions of Americans by embracing this
fundamental truth: [20] the pandemic is over and the government’s response was largely a failure.[21]
Accordingly, the RSC Budget supports the following sampling of bills and policies to reject the left’s
approach:

11
● Rep. Paul Gosar’s (R-AZ) H.J. Res. 7, which would terminate the COVID-19 national emergency
declared by the President on March 13, 2020. This resolution passed the House on February 1 with a
bipartisan vote of 229-197.[22]
● Rep. Brett Guthrie’s (R-KY) H.R. 382, which would terminate the COVID-19 public health emergency
declared on January 31, 2020, by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This bill passed the
House on January 31, 2023, by a vote of 220-210.[23]
● Rep. Guy Reschenthaler’s (R-PA) Defund EcoHealth Alliance Act, which would prohibit the award of
federal funds to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
audit federal funds provided to that organization over the past decade. EcoHealth Alliance is the
nonprofit research center that partners with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronaviruses
and whose research may have been responsible for the outbreak of COVID-19.[24]
● Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) ARTICLE ONE Act, which would terminate any national emergency made by
the executive branch after 30 days. The emergency declaration could only continue through an
affirmative vote of Congress.
● Rep. Brad Wenstrup’s (R-OH) Stop Vaccine Mandates Act, which would permanently block President
Biden’s unlawful COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal workers.
● Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer’s (R-KY) Fairness for Federal Contractors Act,
which would prevent employees of federal contractors from being forced to receive a COVID-19
vaccine.
● RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Ben Cline’s (R-VA) Stop Arduous Vaccine
Enforcement (SAVE Act), which would prohibit organ transplant centers from engaging in the cruel
practice of denying unvaccinated Americans access to life-saving organ transplants.
● Rep Andy Biggs (R-AZ) No Vaccine Passports Act, which would prohibit federal agencies from
issuing vaccine passports to their employees.
● Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s (R-CA) Keep Vaccines Voluntary Act, which would require entities receiving
COVID-19 relief funds to certify that they will not discriminate or deny access to services to
unvaccinated Americans.
● Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) legislation to prohibit entities receiving COVID-19 relief funds from
mandating COVID vaccines for their employees.
● Rep. Diana Harshbarger’s (R-TN) Natural Immunity is Real Act, which would require federal agencies
to include natural immunity acquired from prior COVID-19 infections when issuing rules and
regulations surrounding COVID-19.
● Rep. Ronny Jackson’s (R-TX) FREEDOM Act, which would require federal agencies to document the
consequences of requiring their employees to be vaccinated.
● Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) resolution disapproving of requiring children as young as 11 residing in
Washington D.C. to be vaccinated.
● Rep. Ralph Norman’s (R-SC) Protecting Religious Students from Vaccine Mandates Act, which would
require U.S. colleges and universities receiving federal funds to allow students to apply for religious
exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates on campus.
● Rep. Dan Bishop’s (R-NC) AMERICANS Act, which would immediately rescind the COVID-19 military
vaccine mandate.
● Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) legislation to prohibit a major disaster, or public health emergency,
declaration from being able to be used to impose gun or ammunition controls. It would prohibit such

12
 an emergency or disaster from being able to be used to restrict the sale or transfer of firearms or
ammunition.
● Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) Coronavirus Regulatory Repeal Act, which would permanently rescind the
federal regulations suspended during the pandemic.
● Rep. Claudia Tenney’s (R-NY) Transparency in COVID-19 Expenditures Act, which would require the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and report on spending authorized by pandemic
related legislation. This would include the more than $100 billion in taxpayer dollars appropriated
through COVID relief bills stolen by fraudsters.[25]
● Rep. Chris Stewart’s (R-UT) No Mask Mandate for Kids Act, which would prohibit the executive
branch from imposing mask requirements in airports, on commercial aircraft, trains, public maritime
vessels, intercity bus services, and all forms of public transportation.

Unleashing North American Energy Production

On his first day in office, President Biden started his war on American energy. Since then, gas prices in the
United States have skyrocketed to among the highest levels in history. Meanwhile, Biden has tried—without
evidence—[26] to blame oil and gas companies for the high gas prices caused by his assault on American
energy. Last year, the RSC released a memo listing more than 80 anti-energy actions from the Biden
Administration that started on day-one and coincided with increased gas prices.[27] To build upon this
important work, the RSC has taken over the House Energy Action Team (HEAT), which has already sought to
provide accountability for Biden’s recent anti-energy actions. In conjunction with the work of RSC, the House
of Representatives recently passed H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act introduced by Majority Leader, and
former RSC Chairman, Steve Scalise (R-LA). This legislation included many important reforms, such as RSC
HEAT Chairman Rep. August Pfluger’s bill to repeal Biden’s natural gas tax. The actions of RSC and House
Republicans stand in stark contrast to Democrats, who continue to double down on their Green New Deal
agenda which spurred gas prices to rise to their current staggering levels. Additionally, the RSC Budget
commends the inclusion of a slightly modified version of Rep. Garret Graves’ (R-LA) BUILDER Act in the
Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA), which passed the House this May.[28] The provisions included in the FRA
would limit environmental review of proposed major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) and establish deadlines and other requirements to expedite the environmental review of
such actions. The RSC Budget would expand on the reforms included in the FRA, including by limiting
judicial review in the NEPA process.

The RSC knows that our nation should be exploring and unleashing our vast reserves of energy and mineral
resources. Tapping our domestic energy resources will reduce inflation, promote job creation, and decrease
dependence on foreign oil, both at home and for our allies around the world. The RSC Budget applauds the
House Republican Conference for passing the Lower Energy Costs Act,[29] bipartisan legislation that will
increase American energy production, streamline permitting for energy projects, and repeal America-last
energy policies implemented by the Biden Administration. The RSC Budget would adopt all the provisions of
H.R 1 and calls on the Senate to immediately take up this bipartisan bill, which will create 667,000 new
jobs, lower energy costs by $795 per household, raise wages by 1 percent, increase per-household income
by $2,890 and reduce 10-year deficits by $369 billion.[30] Additionally, the RSC Budget supports the
following policies:

13
● Repeal the green giveaways in the Inflation Reduction Act that use taxpayer dollars to fund
inefficient and unreliable energy sources.
● Reverse President Biden’s executive actions to halt drilling activity in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR).
● Reverse President Biden’s executive action to halt new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, including
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by implementing the American Energy and Security Act, which
would require the Biden Administration to immediately resume lease sales and prevent them from
canceling a lease sale again without the approval of Congress.
● Oppose the Biden Administration’s radical rule to pressure private companies to fund the left’s
environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) agenda by requiring companies to measure
so-called “climate-risk.”[31]
● Rep. Jerry Carl’s (R-AL) Unleashing American Energy Act would require a minimum of two oil and gas
lease sales to be held annually in available federal waters in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico
Planning Area and in the Alaska Region of the Outer Continental Shelf.
● Rep. Matt Rosendale’s (R-MT) Restore Onshore Energy Production Act would immediately resume oil
and gas lease sales on eligible federal lands and require a minimum of four lease sales per year in
each state with an oil and gas program.
● Rep. Beth Van Duyne’s (R-TX) Strategy to Secure Offshore Energy Act would require the publication
of the 2022-2027 plan for offshore oil and gas lease sales by the time the current plan expires on
June 30, 2022.
● Rep. Garret Graves’ (R-LA) Securing American Energy and Investing in Resiliency Act would require
DOI to conduct all remaining offshore oil and gas lease sales in the current leasing plan and issue
leases won as a result of Lease Sale 257.
● The Energy Permitting Certainty Act, which would require DOI to process Applications for Permits to
Drill (APDs) under a valid existing lease regardless of any unrelated civil action.
● Rep. Blake Moore’s (R-UT) Promoting Energy Independence and Transparency Act, which would
require any pending permits for which required views have been completed be issued within 30 days
of enactment.
● Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) American Energy First Act, which would reform the onshore and offshore
energy leasing and permitting processes for conventional and renewable energy development to
reduce uncertainty, avoid unnecessary delays, and prevent large unilateral land grabs by the Biden
Administration.
● Rep. Harriet Hageman’s (R-NM) POWER Act, which would require the President and federal agencies
to get approval from Congress before prohibiting or delaying oil, gas, coal, hard rock, or critical
mineral development on federal lands.
● Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) Protecting American Energy Jobs Act, which would require limits on
geothermal leases to receive congressional approval.
● Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) 30 x 30 Termination Act would nullify Section 216 of Executive Order
14008. That Executive Order seeks to remove 30 percent of federal lands from potential energy
development by 2030.
● Allow states to develop resources on federal land within their borders and prohibit any federal
hydraulic fracturing regulations in a state that has already issued its own regulations.

14
● Rep. Bill Johnson’s (R-OH) Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act would expedite and increase
American natural gas exports by removing duplicative approval requirements.
● Rep. Richard Hudson’s (R-NC) Advanced Nuclear Deployment Act would remove regulatory barriers
for the deployment of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors and Microreactors.
● Rep. Kelly Armstrong’s (R-ND) Keystone XL Pipeline Construction and Jobs Prevention Act, which
would authorize construction of the pipeline and maintenance of needed facilities.
● Oppose the Biden Administration’s Water of the United States (WOTUS), which would expand the
definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, giving the federal government
jurisdiction over seasonal streams, ponds, ditches, and even depressions fields. The RSC Budget
supports H.J. Res 27, introduced by House Transportation Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO)
and Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC), which would repeal this misguided rule. The RSC Budget also
supports Rep. Mary Miller’s (R-IL) Define WOTUS Act and Rep. Bob Latta’s Define WOTUS Act,
which would both provide congressional definitions of which navigable waters fall under federal
jurisdiction.
● This budget supports Rep. Tom Tiffany’s (R-WI) Future Agriculture Retention and Management
(FARM) Act, which would protect American farmland by making solar and wind electricity ineligible
for renewable energy tax credits if the electricity was generated by facilities that a public utility
placed on agricultural land.
● The budget supports deregulatory efforts intended to onshore critical mineral production, which are
essential to many of the goods and services Americans use every day. Rep. Pete Stauber’s (R-MN)
Accessing America’s Critical Minerals Act would reform onerous and duplicative steps in the critical
mineral permitting process by requiring federal agencies to adhere to timelines and improve
coordination.
● This budget supports the continued operation of the Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline and opposes the efforts
of Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and her radical environmentalists allies to shut down the
pipeline. This budget commends Rep. Tom Tiffany’s (R-WI) leadership on this issue.
● This budget opposes President Biden’s decision to reenter the Paris climate agreement. This
misguided decision will reduce economic growth, destroy jobs, and reduce wages. This budget
supports Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) No Taxpayer Funding for Paris Climate Accord Act, which would
ensure that no federal dollars are used to comply with the accords.
● This budget supports Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s (R-CA) legislation to prohibit taxpayer funds for Biden’s
international agreements that pay for “loss and damage” due to climate change.
● Prohibit the use of an emergency disaster or public health emergency declaration from being used to
address purported climate change.
● Block President Biden from introducing a rule similar to Obama’s Clean Power Plan that would
burden our energy sector to promote green socialism.[32]
● Oppose the creation of a carbon tax, which would annually cost more than one million jobs and over
$1 trillion dollars of lost income by 2030.[33] The burden of these taxes would fall squarely on
low-income families and would stifle the innovation that is key to a more efficient future.[34]
● Eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which is a program that requires fuel sold in the U.S.
to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. The RFS has caused a dramatic increase in the price
of corn, food, and gasoline.[35]

15
 ● Oppose President Biden’s plan to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for
passenger cars and light trucks in a way that will go beyond the traditional role of CAFE standards.
His plan would mandate a level of efficiency that would incur tremendous price increases per vehicle
and would have detrimental effects on the economy.[36]
● Rep. Randy Feenstra’s (R-IA) Comparison of Sustainable Transportation Act, which would require the
GAO to report on the increased cost to taxpayers from converting light-duty vehicles in the federal
fleet to electric vehicles and deploying related EV infrastructure.

Occupational Licensing Laws

All levels of U.S. governments should find ways to reduce the burden of occupational licensing requirements,
which often are more about imposing barriers to entry than increasing safety.[37] There is simply no
justification for barbers and interior designers to face stricter licensing requirements than emergency medical
technicians.[38] Thirty percent of jobs now face government-imposed licensing requirements, up from just five
percent from the 1950s.[39] There are as many as 1.9 million fewer jobs today, and nearly $200 billion of
annually misallocated resources, due to these needless and corrupt regulations.[40]

These licensing requirements are especially burdensome to families of military servicemen and women, who
are 10 times more likely to move between states. Most of the military spouses that work in these fields need
to be relicensed following reassignment.[41] While the problem of onerous occupational licensing laws is
mostly caused at the state level, the RSC Budget urges federal lawmakers to examine ways in which the
federal government could respect states’ rights and still facilitate the state-level adoption of policies that
use less restrictive alternatives to occupational licensing. Accordingly, the RSC Budget supports Rep. Diana
Harshbarger’s (R-TN) Freedom to Work Act, which would require federal agencies to review rules and
regulations that put in place occupational licensing requirements for agency positions or cause state and
local governments to adopt licensing requirements, and former RSC Chairman Jim Banks’ (R-IN) Portable
Certification for spouses Act.

Strengthening Financial Markets

Access to credit allows unused resources from productive industries to provide the seed capital of the next.
Financial markets are what enable the economic growth, innovation, and economic mobility that allow
working-class families to enjoy standards of living unknown to previous generations. A free and dynamic
financial sector is how low- and middle-income families gain access to capital to go to school, buy a home,
start a small business, and fulfill their version of the American Dream.

Unfortunately, Democrats are working to abuse the U.S. financial system to steer capital to their cronies,
punish their political enemies and distort the flow of credit in ways that would doom the U.S. to economic
stagnation. They are working to restrict credit to “politically incorrect” industries such as fossil-fuels or
firearm manufacturers.[42] The Federal Reserve is now working to subject fossil fuel producers to harsher and
unjustified “stress tests” to direct liquidity away from affordable and abundant sources of energy and force
investment into green energy sources that are more expensive and notoriously unreliable.[43] [44]

Not to be outdone by the abuses seen during the Obama years, the Biden Administration and Congressional
Democrats are working to bring back the left-wing tradition of using the IRS to spy on Americans. The

16
American Rescue Plan included a provision lowering the reporting threshold of business transactions
conducted on third-party payment platforms from $20,000 to $600. This will allow the IRS to track most
business transactions on these platforms and is ripe for abuse. Additionally, the Biden Administration has
issued a radical rule that would direct millions of Americans’ hard earned retirement savings to subsidize
left-wing causes[45] and has used the power of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to prevent
firearm manufacturers from accessing capital with zero justification.[46] This budget stands firmly against this
blatant overreach.

Finally, the RSC Budget calls for a return to sound, rules-based monetary policy that prioritizes a strong
dollar. When combined with the reckless spending of President Biden and Congressional Democrats, the
quantitative easing policies of the Federal Reserve injected trillions of dollars in new currency into the
American economy—with its balance sheet approaching nearly $9 trillion in 2022.[47] The resulting inflation
spurred the Federal Reserve to dramatically increase interest rates, which has left the American economy
vulnerable to potential recession.[48]

The RSC Budget supports the following additional measures to push back against the efforts of the left to
use the financial markets to implement their progressive agenda and to promote sound monetary policy:

● Rep. Andy Barr’s (R-KY) Congressional Review Act resolution which would rescind the Biden
Administration’s woke 401(k) rule, which allows investors to subsidize liberal special interests with
retiree savings. This bill passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 216-204 and the Senate with a
bipartisan vote of 50-46.
● Rep. Andy Barr’s (R-KY) Fair Access to Banking Act, which would combat corporate cancel culture by
prohibiting banks with assets above $10 billion from discrimination in their lending services.
● Rep. Byron Donald’s (R-FL) Repeal CFPB Act, which would eliminate the duplicative Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. The legal structure of the CFPB “is designed precisely to insulate it from
political accountability. It is a design better suited for a government of unlimited powers conducive to
tyranny rather than to a government of limited powers conducive to freedom.”[49]
● Rep. Drew Ferguson’s (R-GA) Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act, which would prohibit the
Treasury Department from forcing financial institutions to report inflows or outflows (or any similar
amount, whether on a transaction or aggregate basis of any account.
● Rep. French Hill’s (R-AR) Price Stability Act, which would prohibit the Federal Reserve from acting
beyond stabilizing prices to ensure that liberal special interests cannot use exotic tools such as
“climate stress tests” to restrict access to credit.
● RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Ben Cline’s (R-VA) Federal Insurance Office
Elimination Act, which would eliminate the Federal Insurance Office, a relic of Dodd-Frank that is
duplicative of state and local efforts that the Biden Administration has co-opted to promote its
radical climate agenda.[50]

Promoting Trade
Trade is critical to the health of the American economy. It is how our nation grew from a small colony to the
wealthiest and most advanced nation on Earth. The regulation of trade is a legitimate exercise when used to
defend the natural rights of our citizens, including our national security. Trade restrictions must be carefully

17
targeted to address nefarious actions, particularly from the Chinese Communist Party, that amount to theft
from Americans and people all over the globe. The RSC Budget calls on our allies and partners to promote
free trade while working to counter these attacks.

18
19
Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.
- President Ronald Reagan

By the end of 2023, the federal government will have taken $93.25 trillion in wealth out of the hands of
Americans since 1789 through taxes and other revenue.[51] Taxation beyond what is necessary to fulfill the
core constitutional purposes of our government lacks moral justification. This has not stopped liberals from
ransacking the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers to fund a bloated federal government that
rewards the special interests who put them in office. The reckless tax policies of the Left rob Americans of
their hard-earned wages, reduce savings, and undermine the investment needed to grow the economy,
create jobs, and increase individual wealth.

While keeping taxes low must be a top priority, keeping the tax code fair and simple is also critical.
Unfortunately, our tax code is riddled with special interest carveouts and high rates of taxation on
investments and savings. All these distortions cause the misallocation of capital, creating a less robust
economy, and leading to slower wage growth and job creation.

Carveouts for special interests embody corporate cronyism and redistribute wealth from hard-working
Americans to well-connected groups that seek to manipulate the tax code in their favor.[52] They create a less
efficient economy where certain industries and activities exist primarily because of tax subsidies, while more
productive pursuits are robbed of opportunities to create jobs and raise wages for American workers.

A truly pro-growth, pro-worker tax system does not penalize saving and investment in America; it promotes
it.[53] The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) took strides toward this goal by repealing numerous unfair carveouts.
It led to record-low unemployment and record-high wage levels in the years after its enactment.[54] For these
reasons, the RSC Budget builds upon the foundation laid by the TCJA to help restore the United States’
economy.

The Democrats’ Tax Plan to Kill Jobs and Steal Savings

Paying for a Radical Climate Agenda – President Biden and congressional Democrats demonstrated their
ideological radicalism when they forced the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” on the American people.
Under the guise of “reducing inflation,” the Democrats enacted the following radical policies, among others:
● Provides funding to hire 87,000 new IRS agents to spy on low-and middle-income
Americans.[55]
● Raises taxes on American small business by $53.8 billion by limiting the deductibility of
business losses for pass-through businesses.[56]
● Increases energy prices with $12 billion in new taxes on crude oil production[57] and a new
$6.5 billion tax on natural gas production.[58]
● Implements a new $313 billion minimum book tax[59] on American businesses, 50 percent of
which would be paid by American manufacturers.[60] So-called “book” taxes impose a penalty
on “firms for fully deducting the cost of investment from their tax returns, discouraging further
investment and reducing long-run economic growth.”[61] The book-tax will also
disproportionately hit American-produced energy, automobile manufacturing, and utilities.[62]

20
These tax increases will be used to advance a radical Green New Deal agenda that funnels $552.9 billion in
taxpayer dollars to inefficient and unreliable “green” energy sources.[63] This legislation will raise the cost of
energy for hard-working Americans, kill jobs, and reduce wages while funding liberal special interests.[64]
The RSC Budget would repeal these provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Driving Businesses Overseas and Bolstering the Chinese Economy – President Biden has proposed
increasing the top corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent. This would make our corporate tax rate
one of the most burdensome in the world and drive investment and jobs overseas.[65] In fact, it would be
higher and more punitive than that of Communist China (25 percent).[66]

President Biden has also proposed tripling taxes on foreign earnings of American companies, which would
compound this problem and lead more U.S. companies to move all their operations overseas – taking their
investments, jobs, wage payouts, and intellectual property (IP) with them. This would likely result in
increased manufacturing in China and aid their efforts to steal American IP. Simultaneously, it would penalize
U.S. companies that want to bring raw and intermediate inputs to the U.S. to bolster domestic
manufacturing. The RSC Budget opposes President Biden’s plan to reward foreign companies for dumping
products into U.S. markets while taxing American competitors out of our own market.

Additionally, President Biden has proposed a wealth tax that would reduce economic growth, sap retirement
savings, and reduce jobs. He also has proposed doubling the capital gains tax for some high-income
Americans, which would have the same effect. The RSC Budget supports Rep. Byron Donalds’(R-FL)
Prohibiting Unrealized Capital Gains Taxation Act, which would block any attempt to tax unrealized gains on
assets, to guard against these dangerous proposals.

Biden’s Global Tax

The Administration has unilaterally committed the United States to global tax policies that could diminish
the United States’ competitiveness on a global scale and have grave consequences for our domestic
economy. Our international treaty network has worked well over the last century to promote bilateral trade,
investment, and prosperity. Progress on new global tax agreements is important, but Congress must
approve any commitments that might erode the U.S. revenue base or significantly impact bilateral trade and
investment flows. Congressional action to carry out international tax agreements is clear from the text and
structure of the Constitution.

The RSC Budget supports Rep Kevin Hern’s(R-OK) Resolution directing the treasury to provide United
States Pillar One tax revenue modeling data and reports estimating the direct and indirect impact of the
OECD Pillar One agreement.

Pro-Growth Tax Reforms

The following pro-growth and pro-worker tax reforms will produce more investment in America along with
more jobs and higher wages. These proposals serve as a down payment on our commitment to a
pro-growth, pro-worker tax policy, and many have earned bipartisan support. The RSC Budget would cut
taxes by nearly $5.1 trillion over the next 10 years. The pro-growth effects of these tax reductions would
result in $566 billion of additional revenue.[67]

21
Permanence for the Individual Tax Provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – The RSC Budget would make
the individual tax code provisions of the TCJA permanent. This includes important pro-growth features such
as lower income tax rates for working families, a broader base that eliminates corrupt special interest
carve-outs, and tax cuts for small businesses.[68] Allowing the individual cuts and reforms to expire would
undo much of the hard-won victories of the TCJA. This provision would reduce taxes by $2.481 trillion over
the next 10 years.[69]

Full and Immediate Expensing for Investments in Economic Growth – The RSC Budget would enact Rep.
Jodey Arrington’s (R-TX) ALIGN Act, which would make permanent the TCJA provision allowing business to
immediately expense investments in equipment. This pro-growth and pro-worker policy began to phase out
this year, and Congress must take quick action to protect American investment and workers’ wages by
making this policy permanent. When accounting for the higher revenue from the increase in economic
growth generated from this policy, this reform would reduce taxes by $315.6 billion over the next 10 years
and increase payroll tax revenues by $27.5 billion.[70] Additionally, enacting this policy would create 72,600
jobs and increase wages by 0.3%.[71]

The RSC budget would also enact other pro-growth tax reforms allowing businesses to fully and
immediately expense their investments in research and development, which would reduce federal taxes by
$169 billion, increase wages by 0.1%, increase payroll tax revenue by $6.3 billion, and create 16,000 new
high paying jobs over the next 10 years.[72] These expenditures are necessary investments in workers and
productivity that should not be taxed as though they are profits. [73] This policy would promote higher wages
for Americans by permanently ending destructive taxes on investments to increase worker productivity and
wages. [74]

The RSC Budget also supports equalizing the tax treatment of all worker education and training investments
receive the same tax treatment given to other investments.[75] For instance, Rep. Jason Smith’s (R-MO)
Upward Mobility Enhancement Act would more than double the tax benefit attributable to investments
made in upskilling employees.

Promoting American Manufacturing and Resilient Supply Chains through Accelerated Depreciation – The
RSC Budget would adopt RSC Chairman Kevin Hern’s (R-OK) Renewing Investment in American Workers
and Supply Chains Act. This bill would accelerate the current 39-year depreciation schedule for
nonresidential construction, and 27.5-year depreciation schedule for residential construction, to 20 years
each. Additionally, the RSC Budget would allow businesses to annually adjust these deductions for inflation
and the cost of delayed deductions through a neutral cost recovery system (NCRS). These policies would
significantly reduce the cost of new investments in America and bolster American manufacturing and supply
chains. Congress should work quickly to implement these policies, which represent one of the best
opportunities to promote reshoring through increased industrial investment in the United States. When
accounting for the higher revenue from the increased economic growth generated by through shorter
depreciation schedules and NCRS, these reforms would result in $186.2 billion in additional tax revenues,
including $89.6 billion in additional payroll tax revenues, create 234,500 new jobs, increase capital
investment by 2.3 percent, and increase wages by 1 percent.[76]

22
The RSC Budget also supports exempting the sale of overseas manufacturing facilities from taxation if the
manufacturing moves production back to America, a policy included in Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) BEAT China
Act.

Universal Savings Accounts – The RSC Budget would create Universal Savings Accounts (USAs) to allow
all Americans to flexibly invest in their future free of extra taxation. These accounts would allow some of the
savings of American families, already taxed twice through income taxes, to avoid a third round of taxation
through capital gains.[77]

Shielding the Middle Class from Capital Gains Taxes – The RSC Budget would reduce taxes on
working-class Americans by adjusting the second long-term capital gains bracket to start at $75,000 for
single filers (1.5 times for Head of Household filers and twice as much for Widow and Joint filers). This
would protect low- and middle-income families from the burden of capital gains taxes and remove a
needless barrier to economic mobility.

Index Capital Gains Taxes to Inflation – The destructive policies implemented by President Biden and
Congressional Democrats created the highest inflation in more than 40 years.[78] This inflation is a crushing
burden on middle-class families and creates a hidden tax on capital investment. While assets are currently
taxed partially on price changes caused by inflation, the RSC Budget would ensure taxpayers are not forced
to pay for artificial gains caused by inflation by applying capital gains taxes only to the real growth in the
value of investments.[79]

Eliminate Death Taxes – Death taxes impose yet another layer of taxation on the work of prior generations
to build businesses and create thriving communities.[80] Death taxes are particularly damaging for Americas
farmers and agricultural producers. This insidious tax forces families grieving the loss of a loved one are to
liquidate the life’s work of their parents or grandparents in order to comply with the death tax. All productive
capital across an economy has the possibility of facing this layer of taxation in the future. This prospect
hangs over, and devalues, all investment in new production and innovation and ultimately hurts working
Americans through fewer jobs, lower wages, and lost opportunity.[81] This Budget would adopt Ways and
Means Chairman Jason Smith’s (R-MO) Death Tax Repeal Act. Eliminating the death tax would create 22,300
jobs and reduce taxes on hardworking Americans by $374.4 billion over 10 years while increasing payroll
tax revenues by $8.6 billion.

Expand Net Interest Deduction – Congress should permanently apply the EBITDA (earnings before interest,
tax, depreciation, and amortization) definition of income for determining the net interest deduction.[82] This
year, the tax code began using EBIT (earnings before interest and tax) to define income. This switch
penalizes capital-intensive businesses that finance purchases to grow their businesses. The RSC Budget
would reverse this change.

The RSC budget supports Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Rep Kevin Hern’s (R-OK) The American Investment
in Manufacturing Act, which would amend the U.S. tax code to increase the cap on deductible business
interest to pre-2022 levels. This change will promote further domestic investment while helping address
concerns about rising interest rates and creating 14,900 new jobs.[83]

23
Net Operating Loss (NOL) Reforms – Firms receive a Net Operating Loss (NOL) deduction when losses for a
given tax year exceed revenue. However, delayed use of this deduction allows inflation and opportunity
costs to chip away at its value. Further, limitations on the use of these deductions can mean forfeiting them
altogether. These effects increase the overall tax burden on investments, reintroducing the multiple layers of
taxation that the deduction sought to avoid.[84] Lawmakers should index the remaining deduction annually to
maintain its present value and allow unlimited carryforwards and carrybacks of NOL deductions.

1099-K Reforms to Protect American taxpayers – As part of the disastrous and inflationary American
Rescue Plan, the Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats authorized the IRS to spy on taxpayers,
independent contractors, and gig workers who make more than $600 worth of transactions through
payment applications and third-party payment platforms.[85] The RSC Budget would prevent the harassment
of Americans by enacting Rep. Carol Miller’s (R-WV) Saving Gig Economy Taxpayers Act, which return the
threshold requiring a 1099-K return to the previous level of $20,000 and 200 separate transactions.

Repeal Distorting and Monopoly-forming Carveouts

As described by the Mercatus Center, “Various deductions, exemptions, and credits create an uneven tax
environment…which distort consumption and investment.”[86] The RSC Budget seeks to eliminate these
corrupt carveouts and would use these savings to reduce taxes for American workers and job makers.

The RSC Budget fully repeals the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. The SALT deduction federally
subsidizes the tax-and-spend policies of liberal states. The ability to deduct SALT liability exclusively
benefits wealthy taxpayers. In fact, the Tax Policy Center found that, “…two-thirds of households in the top 1
percent – making over $885,000 per year – would receive an average tax cut of $16,090 in 2022.”[87]
Repealing SALT would create room for $2.285 trillion in broad based tax relief.[88]

The RSC Budget also seeks to eliminate tax breaks for the inefficient and unreliable producers of so-called
“green energy,” many of which are extended periodically through “tax extender” packages. Despite
exorbitant costs to taxpayers, President Biden and Congressional Democrats pushed through $369 billion in
taxpayer-funded subsidies for inefficient and unreliable green energy sources to advance their radical climate
agenda and increase the cost of energy for hard working Americans.[89] The RSC Budget would also adopt
the mortgage interest deduction reforms contained in the House-passed version of the TCJA, applying a
$500,000 cap for newly purchased homes and applying the deduction to principal residences. This would
allow for $184 billion in broad-based tax relief. The RSC Budget would also remove several other
miscellaneous tax carveouts from the tax code.[90]

Other Conservative Tax Reforms

The following represents a set of ideal reforms that lawmakers should pursue in the future:
● End Marriage Penalties – Congress should continue efforts to eliminate tax code provisions that
disincentivize family formation. While the TCJA eliminated several marriage penalties, many
remain.[91] Marriage penalties represent another instance where the tax code applies disparate
treatment to similarly situated individuals to extract more revenue from the American people.

24
 The RSC Budget supports former Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s (R-MO) Student Loan Marriage Penalty
Elimination Act, which would remove the marriage penalty contained in the student loan interest
deduction.
● End Incentives to Hire Illegal Labor – Congress should also reevaluate tax policies that perpetuate
illegal immigration. The RSC Budget would prohibit businesses from deducting wage and benefit
compensation paid to illegal immigrants.
● Creation of Unified Tax Treated Accounts – The RSC Budget would encourage creating unified tax
treated accounts (or tax-free rollovers across accounts) where individuals could move money
between retirement and education savings accounts and use those funds to purchase their residence,
or vice versa while having such funds excluded from taxable income. This would give individuals and
families access to the kind of ideal tax treatment of investments and savings to which only certain
businesses have access under current law.
● Protect Donor Advised Funds - The RSC Budget would oppose Democrats’ attempts to effectively
eliminate Donor Advised Funds (DAF), which facilitate mid-sized charitable contributions.[92]
Democrats have proposed delaying the tax benefit from DAFs in a manner that would negate the
reason for creating them in the first place. This would give more power to large organizations and
would crowd out many mid-size donors and organizations.
● Reform Reporting on Tax Expenditures – Every year the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) produces
a list of tax expenditures. The RSC Budget would direct JCT to identify tax expenditures that are
either true carveouts or simply remove or reduce multiple layers of taxation on saving and investing.

25
26
27
Conservatives believe that there is dignity in work and that people are capable of living fulfilling,
self-sufficient lives. For many years, the Left has tried to expand the role of government to ensure that
Americans become increasingly dependent on federal funding. Sadly, as currently constructed, welfare
programs are inefficiently structured, poorly targeted, and insufficiently designed to transition people back
into work. The true success of welfare programs should not be measured by how many are enrolled, rather
by how many leave the programs to re-enter the economy. Instead of trapping individuals in a cycle of
poverty, government should remove obstacles to all Americans rather than prolonging their economic
hardship.

The unrivaled failure of our modern welfare system has also spawned an enormous bureaucracy with a
staggering price tag. Between 1965, when the War on Poverty was declared, and 2021, “the U.S. has spent
$34 trillion on means-tested welfare.”[93] Overall, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has identified 95
different federal programs meant to assist low-income people that cost $1.078 trillion in FY 2020.[94] From
2008-2020, federal means-tested spending on these programs skyrocketed by 92 percent.[95] When
spending by the states is added in, governments spend more than $1.16 trillion each year on welfare
programs.[96] Maintaining the status quo is both fiscally unsustainable and morally unjustifiable.

The policies recommended by this budget build upon the previous work done by the RSC, including the
RSC’s American Worker Task Force of the 116th Congress, which was chaired by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). The
American Worker Task Force’s report, Reclaiming the American Dream, explores avenues for modernizing
our labor market and promoting opportunities for work.[97] Additionally, the report proposes bold and
innovative ideas to broaden alternative education paths, address nationwide addiction problems, improve
our tax code to remove barriers to worker improvement, and break down regulatory obstacles.

Eliminate Marriage Penalties in Welfare Programs

One of the most important correlatives of a family’s economic wellbeing is marital stability. In 2021, 19.55
percent of families with a single adult lived in poverty. In contrast, only 4.8 percent of married-couple
families lived in poverty.[98] Unfortunately, more and more children are facing a higher likelihood they will
grow up in poverty as marriage rates continue to plummet. In 2021, 40 percent of all babies born in the
United States were born out of marriage, 1.464 million in total.[99] When the War on Poverty began in 1965,
only 7.7 percent of children were born outside of marriage.[100]

Unfortunately, the current construction of means-tested welfare programs punishes those who marry, which
undermines their stated purpose of reducing poverty. Some of the largest welfare programs, like Medicaid,
TANF, and SNAP contain marriage penalties.[101] If a low-income person receiving government assistance
marries an employed person, their welfare benefits will often be reduced or eliminated—sometimes by an
amount larger than the income of the employed spouse. It has been said that “for most couples on welfare,
getting married is among the more expensive decisions on average, reducing welfare benefits by 10 percent
of their total income.”[102] These policies disincentivize family stability, exacerbating the cycle of poverty.[103]
The RSC Budget supports welfare reforms that would mitigate and remove these marriage penalties.

28
Work Requirements for Earned Success
The virtues of personal responsibility and initiative are central to shaping strong citizens, families, and
communities. Arthur Brooks, the former president of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote that “[w]ork
gives people something welfare never can.” [104] Work instills a sense of purpose, self-worth, self-sufficiency,
and dignity that cannot be achieved with a government check. The happiness that work provides is not due
to money earned, but instead from the “value created in our lives and the lives of others – value that is
acknowledged and rewarded.”[105] It has an obvious material utility, enabling us to support ourselves and our
families financially. In 2021, of the 28 million Americans over 16 years old in poverty, 72.9 percent had not
worked that year, whereas only 1.8 percent of those with full-time jobs were in poverty.[106]

We know work requirements have been successful. In 2013, Kansas instituted work requirements and time
limits for able-bodied adults without dependents on food stamps and created a tracking system to monitor
the results. These reforms reduced the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps by 75 percent, most of
whom are now employed and earning more than the benefits they once received.[107] Similarly, Maine
required able-bodied adults receiving food stamps to take a job, participate in job training or perform six
hours of community service per week. Within three months, the “caseload of able-bodied adults without
dependents plummeted by 80 percent.”[108] After work requirements were put in place, “[e]nrollees [went]
back to work and their incomes more than double[d]; their increased incomes more than offset lost benefits;
their time on welfare [was] cut in half.”[109]

The RSC Budget would require all federal benefit programs be reformed to include work promotion
requirements that would help people move away from dependence and toward self-sufficiency. The RSC
Budget also opposes any efforts to implement anti-work proposals such as universal basic income (UBI). The
American Rescue Plan, while sold as a necessary step toward economic recovery, included numerous
anti-work provisions that encouraged people to remain unemployed.

Unemployment Insurance
The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program was designed to temporarily aid those that require assistance
during rough periods of time. Unfortunately, whenever there is an economic downturn, Democrats, looking to
add more people in the cycle of dependency, call for new duplicative aid systems and packages. This is
precisely what Democrats did with UI during the COVID-19 pandemic. Congressional Democrats kept UI
benefit levels elevated above the equivalent of what one would earn from a $15 per hour job.

These expanded benefits needlessly kept Americans out of the labor force and severely stunted the
economic recovery. In fact, one study of economic conditions in 2021 determined “…the national
unemployment rate in each of July and August would have been around 0.3 percentage point lower than
they were, and the employment-population ratio would have been around 0.1-0.2 percentage point higher
than it was, had all states ended FPUC and PUA in June.”[110]

This budget rejects any attempt to turn the UI system into a permanent form of welfare and would ensure
that total UI payments may never exceed the former wage level of an individual (minus the taxes they paid
out of those wages since UI benefits are not taxed as high as wage income is taxed).

29
Improving the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
In 1996, conservatives in Congress worked to reform the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children
program. These reforms were embodied in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program,
which replaced the failing, dependence-driven status quo and instead focused on promoting work. Thanks to
these commonsense reforms, child poverty fell dramatically and employment for single mothers increased.
The successful, poverty-reducing reforms to TANF serve as the model for all reforms to means-tested
programs in the RSC Budget.

Despite the positive reforms contained in the FRA,[111] there remains room to strengthen TANF. Current work
participation rate standards require 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families be
engaged in work.[112] To be considered engaged in work, individuals must participate in specified activities
during a month.[113] However, states can manipulate their required work participation rate by spending more
than the state’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement.[114] Also, states have used more than half of the
program’s funding on purposes other than supporting work, such as using TANF funds to balance their own
budgets.

To fix these problems, the RSC Budget supports former Ways & Means Chairman Kevin Brady’s (R-TX) JOBS
for Success Act with minor adjustments. This legislation makes several important reforms to the TANF
program to strengthen the program’s focus on work and increase state accountability. It strengthens work
requirements by mandating all work-eligible individuals receiving assistance meet their work requirements
in exchange for monthly benefits. The bill shifts its state compliance standards from the easily manipulated
work participation rates to an outcome-based performance system that focuses on the rate of work-eligible
individuals who are employed six months of exiting the program. The bill includes language that would
prohibit states from diverting federal TANF funding to supplant state spending on social services and would
limit state use of TANF funds to families below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.[115]

The RSC Budget suggests several minor conservative modifications designed to further enhance the bill.
States should not be allowed to provide pro-rata benefits to TANF beneficiaries that do not fully comply
with their work requirements. The current 12-month limit imposed on counting vocational educational
training as a work activity should be maintained. The RSC Budget supports including language barring state
MOE funds from being spent on beneficiaries beyond the 60-month limit placed on use of federal funding
and on non-citizens. The RSC Budget also recommends using those savings from elimination of the TANF
Contingency Fund for deficit reduction.

This budget supports the work of former HUD Secretary Ben Carson with respect to HUD’s EnVision
Centers.[116] These centers serve as a one-stop-shop to help housing welfare beneficiaries access holistic
services that facilitate long-term gainful employment and self-sufficiency. This budget would expand these
centers to help all recipients of any federal welfare program and would allow states to use TANF funding to
supplement this work.[117]

Similarly, this budget supports states using block grant funding to implement innovative and empowering
policies to promote work, ensure self-sufficiency, and reduce dependence through Empowerment Accounts
(EA).[118] EAs would provide current safety-net funding from existing block grants to certain eligible

30
recipients on a debit card. To qualify, recipients would need to be working, training, or following an education
program while meeting with a community case manager and attaining financial literacy and savings
opportunities along the way to pay for specified items.

Potential Reforms to SNAP

The SNAP program is in dire need of reform. The FRA made two notable changes to program that this
budget would build upon. It expanded work requirements for childless adults up to age 55 and scaled back
the use of discretionary exemptions at the state level.

This budget would adopt sensible reforms contained in the 2018 House-passed Farm Bill. These reforms
were designed to broaden the applicability of work requirements for able-bodied adults, restrict the ability of
states to waive work requirements, and close the Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility and Heat and Eat
Loopholes. Unfortunately, these provisions were left out of the final version of the Farm Bill that became
law.

Using the successful 1996 reform of TANF as a model, this budget would convert SNAP into a discretionary
block grant to the states based on rates of unemployment, poverty, and the length of time beneficiaries
receive aid. Under this model, States would have flexibility to administer their own programs subject to
several commonsense requirements to ensure program effectiveness and viability. An enhanced state cost
share would be integrated into this block grant approach. Presently, states pay about half of administrative
costs, but these costs comprise only about 10 percent of overall SNAP spending. Calling on states to share
benefit expenses would ensure careful consideration of the federal funding requested and promote targeting
aid to the most vulnerable while connecting recipients to work and lifting them out of poverty, just as was
achieved with the bipartisan TANF reforms in 1996. This block grant system would require states to
establish and maintain a robust work activation program for able-bodied adults that strictly enforces time
limits for how long an individual can receive benefits without meeting certain work requirements.[119] The
SNAP law is supposed to limit benefits for able-bodied adults without children who are unwilling to work,
search for work, or enroll in job training to three months in any three-year period. However, even before the
COVID-19 pandemic, this requirement has been decimated by blanket waivers.[120]

The RSC Budget would also rescind the “Thrifty Food Plan” (TFP) expansion enacted by the Biden
Administration. All previous updates to the TFP were cost-neutral, but the Biden Administration’s expansion
increased federal SNAP spending by $250 billion.[121]

The RSC Budget supports repealing the geographic waivers that allow people from a certain area to avoid
meeting the work requirement and reducing the percentage of people a state can waive from the work
requirement from 8 percent to 5 percent.[122] These reforms are based on aspects of Rep. Garret Graves’
(R-LA) bill, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Reform Act. The RSC Budget also supports Rep.
Dusty Johnson’s (R-SD) America Works Act of 2023, and is pleased that the provision raising the maximum
age for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) subject to work requirements to match the
Medicare eligibility age was included in the FRA. This reform is particularly important given the low
percentage of workers currently subject to work requirements and the significantly lower labor force

31
participation rate of 64.6% for those aged 55-64, [123] the second lowest of all age groups below the
retirement age.[124]

In recognition of the lack of pro-work reforms in the 2018 Farm Bill, the Trump Administration promulgated
a Department of Agriculture rule to strengthen the work requirements in SNAP for ABAWDs.[125] The rule
set strict, metrics-based, nation-wide standards for how states can apply for geographic waivers. RSC
Chairman Kevin Hern (R-OK) wrote to Secretary Perdue in support of the rule.[126] The rule was designed to
use Bureau of Labor Statistics defined commuter areas with shared labor and economic activity pools to
serve as the standard for determining what qualifies as an area for the program. The rule would effectively
eliminate the availability of state-wide waivers. Additionally, the rule sought to add a 6 percent minimum
unemployment rate for a state to be eligible for a waiver. Unfortunately, the rule was enjoined in federal
court and the Biden Administration will not fight for its implementation.

Current law requires states to limit SNAP benefits to only those households with assets of $2,250 without
an elderly household member ($3,500 with an elderly household member) or less to focus the program on
those who are truly needy.[127] This asset test includes cash and liquid assets like stocks but excludes assets
such as primary residences, vehicles, and education and retirement savings. Data shows that widespread use
of broad-based categorical eligibility has rendered this asset test meaningless. Nationwide, more than 4
million individuals are on welfare despite having assets above the statutory limit. More than half of these
households have assets of $20,000 or more, and more than 20 percent of them have assets of $100,000 or
more.[128] As the Foundation for Government Accountability has shown, SNAP enrollment loopholes are so
broad that millionaires can receive benefits.[129] The RSC Budget supports elimination of broad-based
categorical eligibility in SNAP. It also supports closing the Heat and Eat loophole.[130]

The RSC Budget supports reforms to help crack down on the estimated $960 million to $4.7 billion in SNAP
card trafficking fraud that takes place each year.[131] According to the Department of Agriculture, 12.7
percent of authorized SNAP stores were engaged in fraud over the 2015-2017 period.[132] As a means of
recouping administrative expenses associated with retailer applications, the RSC Budget supports the
creation of an application fee.

The RSC Budget supports instituting a requirement that nutrition assistance beneficiaries present a photo ID
when using an electronic benefit card to make a purchase. This reform would prevent fraud and protect
those participating in the program from having their benefits stolen.[133] Further, the number of EBT cards
issued to a single beneficiary each year should be limited, the use of food stamps outside the beneficiary’s
state of residence should be barred, voluntary return of unused amounts should be allowed, and cash
withdrawals of EBT benefits should be prohibited. Also, as a condition of SNAP eligibility, consent to home
visits as a means of deterring welfare fraud should be required in all states.

Housing
The federal government spends over $50 billion per year on housing assistance and development
programs.[134] [135] The two largest programs, Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and Project-Based Rental
Assistance, provide subsidies for tenants to pay rent and for housing units to be subsidized. In their current
form, these programs encourage broken homes, fragmented communities, and dependence among

32
recipients. Housing assistance should promote upward mobility rather than condemn the most vulnerable to
permanent dependency.

The RSC Budget would streamline rental housing assistance programs within HUD that duplicate efforts of
Section 8 tenant-based and project-based programs. The list of programs that overlap is lengthy and
includes the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program, HOME Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME), McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants, Section 101 Rent Supplement Program, the
Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, the Self-Help and Assisted Home Ownership Program, and the Section 236
Rental Assistance Payments Program.

The RSC Budget would also combine current subsidies for house building and availability programs, such as
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, project-based Section 8 rental assistance, Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation, and public housing, into Section 8 housing vouchers. This would ensure that recipients can use
assistance to acquire housing in an efficient way that is subject to market price signals while reducing
bureaucracy. Given the inherently local nature of housing assistance, the RSC Budget would use the
successful TANF model and phase in a state-share requirement to encourage competent administration and
incentivize states to move voucher recipients into good-paying jobs through work requirements (described
below). The RSC Budget would also reduce management and administration funding by 25 percent to
account for streamlining and simplifying federal housing programs.

The current structure of public housing benefits discourages marriage. According to one study, “A single
mother receiving benefits from Section 8 or public housing would receive a subsidy worth on average around
$11,000 per year if she was not employed, but if she marries a man earning $20,000 per year, these benefits
would be cut nearly in half.”[136] This marriage penalty should be eliminated.

The RSC Budget would significantly reduce the reliance on the destructive Housing First policy. Rep. Andy
Barr (R-KY), chair of the RSC’s American Worker Task Force of the 116th Congress, has worked tirelessly to
ensure that this damaging policy is repealed. This policy requires entities that receive federal housing aid to
focus on putting beneficiaries into housing before addressing any other issues and concerns. This design
prevents community-based housing entities from addressing the root causes of homelessness creates
unproductive and unsafe situations. The RSC Budget supports former Secretary Carson’s Continuum of Care
to mitigate the damaging effects of Housing First.[137]

To encourage private investment in public housing, housing authorities should be permitted to use profits to
build units without government assistance and to reduce the need for federal funding. For example,
Congress should expand the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program and remove its statutory cap.
This would allow housing authorities to leverage public and private debt and equity to reinvest in public
housing stock and ensure federal funding follows the people it is intended to serve—not the bureaucracy.

According to the CBO, about half of housing assistance beneficiaries are able-bodied adults, but only half of
that group “receive[s] the largest portion of their income from work.”[138] Reform of federal public housing
programs should include a minimum work activation requirement for able-bodied adults. Modest increases in

33
income should not immediately result in a proportional decrease in subsidies, because that discourages work
and self-improvement.

According to the HUD inspector general, over 25,000 families are receiving public housing benefits despite
not meeting the income guidelines. To reduce fraud, periodic reviews of beneficiaries’ income should be
conducted.[139]

State Flexibility for Supplemental Security Income

SSI provides cash payments to aged, blind, or disabled persons. SSI has also been expanded beyond its
original purpose to include payments to the parents of disabled children. Under the current program, states
have incentives to push families to enroll on SSI.[140] Tragically, children who received SSI payments often
become dependent on the program as adults.

The RSC Budget supports giving more control of the program and its spending to states through block
grants with a phased-in state cost share. This would allow all 50 states to experiment and better serve their
citizens, such as through empowering those individuals to enjoy the dignity of work and service if they are
able. Further, the RSC Budget would tailor benefits provided to parents of disabled children to ensure the
child receives assistance for treating the disability when another federal program does not already provide
for such treatment.

Eliminate “Performance Bonuses” that Jeopardize Program Integrity

Some welfare programs include “bonus payments” to states that may be well intentioned but often have
negative consequences for recipients. For instance, a bonus payment aimed at rewarding efficient
administration could inadvertently incentivize state agencies to not actively investigate and reduce instances
of improper payments. The SNAP program has paid performance bonuses for expanding enrollment.[141]
Performance bonuses should be thoroughly reviewed and eliminated if they jeopardize the integrity of the
programs.

Focus School Lunch Subsidies on Those Who Actually Need Them

The RSC Budget would streamline funding for child nutrition programs into a single block grant.[142] The
block grant would give states needed flexibility and include a phased-in state cost share, which would
incentivize efficient administration to prevent the widespread fraud present in the program and promote the
efficient allocation of funds to those who need it most.

The RSC Budget would also institute reforms to school lunch subsidies to ensure that they go to needy
families by eliminating the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) from the School Lunch Program. CEP
allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student.
Additionally, the RSC Budget would limit spending in the program to truly needy households.[143]

Further, the “school lunch and breakfast programs are subject to widespread fraud and abuse.”[144] The lunch
and breakfast programs made $2.445 billion in improper payments from FY2016-FY2021.[145] States, in
conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, must take steps to address this problem.

34
Fighting Fraud
A disappointing consequence of the federal government spending so much on assistance programs is the
inevitable fraud. This is an issue that has only been made worse by the pandemic and the plethora of
newly-created aid programs related to it. Our income security programs are rife with fraud. The improper
payment rates for the EITC, ACTC and Medicaid are 31.6 percent, 15.8 percent and 15.6 percent,
respectively. This amounts to total improper payments of $18.177 billion for the EITC, $5.182 billion for the
ACTC and $80.573 billion for Medicaid.[146] Medicaid’s improper payments alone are larger than most federal
programs— including more than four times the size of NASA’s entire annual budget.

Last year, the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Labor found massive levels of improper payments
in the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(PEUC) and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) programs which provided expanded
unemployment benefits during the pandemic.[147] According to the IG’s report, “In December 2021, consistent
with our recommendation, ETA reported an improper payment rate of 18.71 percent. The OIG notes this
estimate is based on the regular UI program and has been applied to two of three key pandemic UI
programs, PEUC and FPUC. ETA states it will report the third program, PUA, in 2022. Applying the 18.71
percent to the estimated $872.5 billion in pandemic UI payments, at least $163 billion in pandemic UI
benefits could have been paid improperly, with a significant portion attributable to fraud.”[148] Private sector
estimates put the total level of fraud at $250 billion, with as much as $140 billion going to China, Russia and
other state-sponsored entities.[149] This is unacceptable, and the RSC Budget applauds the House Committee
on Oversight and Accountability for conducting needed oversight on this unprecedented mishandling of
taxpayer dollars.[150]

These errors, waste, and fraud do not just cost taxpayers money; they divert resources away from those who
need it most. With federal programs facing dire financial futures and more Americans receiving welfare than
ever before, wasting money through fraud to appease liberal bureaucrats is unsustainable and – more
importantly – immoral.

The RSC Budget supports utilizing the Social Security Administration (SSA) as a centralized database to
determine the family status of welfare recipients. This would allow the IRS and the Department of Health
and Human Services to cross-check the Social Security Number (SSN) of a welfare recipient against their
claimed marital status and claimed dependents. The RSC Budget would make state eligibility for certain
welfare block grant funding contingent on state welfare programs providing such data to SSA. Additionally,
the RSC would require the IRS to verify eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax
Credit (CTC) and require Social Security numbers for all EITC and CTC recipients to reduce fraud and
unlawful payments.

Agencies can and should stringently verify and crosscheck the criteria for benefit eligibility, such as income,
residency, identity, employment, citizenship status and whether the recipient is already receiving benefits to
ensure the applicant is eligible for the program. The agency should regularly conduct reviews of the
beneficiary’s eligibility information, including by crosschecking other government datasets. If the agency
determines a beneficiary is no longer eligible, the beneficiary should be removed from the rolls and the
agency should refer those who knowingly break the law to authorities for prosecution.[151] The RSC Budget

35
would promote these commonsense reforms by implementing Rep. Greg Stuebe’s (R-FL) legislation to
require federal agencies to confirm whether recipients of federal benefits aged 105 and older are actually
eligible for that assistance. These basic steps will help prevent the rampant fraud in federal welfare
programs, such as the more than 1 million stimulus checks that went to deceased people.[152]

Agencies need to remember their mission is to reduce welfare dependency and move people to a meaningful
life of self-sufficiency. Under no circumstances should success at a welfare agency be measured by how
many can be kept on the rolls. Government employees should be held accountable for doing their jobs with
appropriate diligence. The RSC Budget would also create incentives to reduce waste by implementing Rep.
Chuck Fleischmann’s (R-TN) Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act, which would expand the federal employee
awards program for identifying fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

The federal government should also reduce fraud in state-administered programs by incentivizing state
agencies and attorneys general to investigate and prosecute welfare fraud. If states are allowed to retain a
portion of the dollars recovered due to fraud and abuse, they will be more likely to crack down on it.

States should also be encouraged to withhold benefits from individuals who test positive for illegal drugs, as
provided by Rep. David Rouzer’s (R-NC) Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients Act.

Finally, Congress must ensure that those in the country illegally do not collect welfare benefits reserved for
American citizens who did not break the law. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “…66 percent
of households headed by non-citizens who do not have a green card, and who are mostly illegal immigrants,
have very high welfare use rates — excluding the EITC.”[153] Additionally, this budget applauds Rep. Glenn
Grothman’s (R-WI) legislation to promote self-sufficiency among immigrants. Accordingly, the RSC Budget
would limit means-tested welfare programs such as Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, TANF and
SNAP to U.S. citizens and require enrollees to provide verification of their U.S. citizenship. Further
common-sense reforms to the U.S. immigration system can be found in the Protecting Conservative Values
Section of the budget.

36
37
Providing for the nation’s defense is mandated by the constitution. Only by maintaining the sovereignty of
the United States can the federal government preserve the intrinsic rights of our citizens. America’s
sovereignty can only be guaranteed with a strong, ready, and capable military.

The RSC Budget commends the steps taken by former President Trump to rebuild our military’s strength and
execute the visions outlined in his National Defense Strategy [154] and National Security Strategy.[155] The RSC
Budget builds upon the Trump Administration as well as the work done by the RSC National Security &
Foreign Affairs Task Force in their report “Strengthening America & Countering Global Threats.”[156]

Tragically, under President Biden’s weak leadership, the world is more unstable than it has been in decades.
Since President Biden took office, Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, Iran is now
closer than ever to obtaining a nuclear weapon, and China is closer to invading Taiwan. Still, President Biden
pushes for a military that focuses on woke social politics. Last year Senate Armed Services discovered the
Department of Defense spent 6 million man-hours on woke training and programing. The military spent 5.3
million hours and $535,000 carrying out the stand down order from Secretary Austin. The military also
spent 530,000 hours and $477,000 on diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) training according to data given to
Senate Republicans. This is completely unacceptable; the RSC Budget would prohibit funding on woke
policies in the Department of Defense.

Instead, the RSC Budget would provide for a robust U.S. military, strong support for advancing American
interests and values, and an efficient allocation of national defense resources. The RSC Budget seeks to
achieve all these aims while attaining fiscal discipline and preventing trillions of dollars from unnecessarily
being added to the national debt, in part because defense experts have said our bloated debt is the greatest
threat to our national security.[157]

The RSC Budget would adhere to the statutory spending caps on defense provided in the Fiscal
Responsibility Act for fiscal years 2024 through 2029 and then continue the same 1 percent annual growth
trajectory for the remainder of the ten-year budget window. The RSC Budget supports actions to bolster our
security and that of our allies, advance human rights around the globe, support the formation of free and
peaceful societies, and promote the adoption of trade agreements with free, human-rights-respecting allied
nations.

A Dangerous World: Renewed Great Power Competition

U.S. prestige is increasingly challenged by numerous threats to the U.S.-led global order and undermined by
weak leadership at home. These threats have led to the reemergence of great power competition, the likes of
which we have not seen since the Cold War. Freedom of navigation, the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of nations, adherence to freedom and democracy, and respect for human rights are all now in jeopardy.

These threats have only grown in the past two years. China is continuing to accelerate its rapid military
modernization, including its nuclear buildup. According to the Pentagon, China could have 1,000 nuclear
warheads by 2030.[158] [159] Rear Adm. Michael Studeman, director of the National Maritime
Intelligence-Integration Office has noted that China is engaged in a “build-up in every warfare area” from
space and cyber to a blue water navy.[160] Russia invaded Ukraine just over a year ago, creating the largest

38
security crisis on the European continent since World War II. At the same time, China and Russia have begun
cooperating at an unprecedented scale. In February 2022, both countries announced a “no limits” partnership
to undermine U.S. interests and spread their malign influence around the globe.[161] This partnership has
increasingly included Iran. For instance, in mid-March, Russia, China and Iran completed three-way naval
exercises in the Arabian Sea.[162] In the past year, Iran has sold drones and missiles to Russia for use in
Ukraine,[163] while Russia has returned the favor by sending U.S. provided weapons it has captured in Ukraine
to Iran.[164] Chinese companies have supplied aerospace components to Iranian drone manufacturers that
have since been sold to Russia and used in attacks on oil tankers.[165] Iran continues to provide cheap oil sales
to China in violation of U.S. sanctions, while China has brokered an agreement for the establishment of
diplomatic relations between Iran and U.S.-partner Saudi Arabia.[166]

The U.S. must recognize the historic and perilous nature of the combined threat from China, Russia, and Iran.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff in their major new paper on U.S. strategy entitled Joint Concept for Competing
describes the nature of the threat. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and transnational criminal groups are
working together in an integrated way. All aspects of their military and civil power are coming together in an
unprecedented fashion to threaten U.S. interests making it easier for our adversaries to “win without
fighting:”

Adversaries are employing cohesive combinations of military and civil power to expand the
competitive space. Adversaries aim to achieve their strategic objectives through a myriad of ways and
means, including statecraft and economic power as well as subversion, coercion, disinformation, and
deception. They are investing in key technologies designed to offset U.S. strategic and conventional
military capabilities (e.g., nuclear weapons, anti-access and area denial systems, offensive
cyberspace, artificial intelligence, hypersonic delivery systems, electromagnetic spectrum).[167]

The RSC Budget would continue to invest in our national security and defense posture to ensure that the
United States does not fall behind malign actors, like China, in a new era of Great Power Competition.

China
Under Xi Jinping’s reign as President of China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has grown more assertive
in its pursuit of power and assault on freedom and human rights, both within China and around the world.
Within China, the CCP has perpetuated a genocide against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and undertaken
severe religious persecution of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists. The CCP continues to hold Taiwan in its
sights, openly boasting of its intent to invade and “reunify" China.[168] Last month the Director of National
Intelligence testified to Congress that “the CCP represents both the leading and most consequential threat
to U.S. national security and leadership globally, and its intelligence-specific ambitions and capabilities make
it for us our most serious and consequential intelligence rival.”[169] China has grown so brazen as to send a
spy balloon to fly above U.S. soil which gathered intelligence from sensitive U.S. military sites which was
transmitted back to China in real time.[170]

China has also continued to modernize and enlarge its military, challenging the superiority of U.S. forces in
the region. China’s military budget is more than three times what it was in 2009,[171] and according to China’s
official statistics, its spending on R&D climbed to $456 billion in 2022, a new high.[172] Its development of

39
“carrier-killing” anti-ballistic missiles has caused many in the defense community to reevaluate U.S. naval
strategy in Asia. These new weapons are key components of China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)
strategy, which seeks to prevent the U.S. and its allies from operating in the region if a crisis or conflict were
to arise. This strategy also threatens the basic freedom of navigation on the high seas that has always been
a bedrock principle of the U.S. and the goal of our naval operations since its founding. Moreover, China is
rapidly modernizing its nuclear arsenal, presenting an unprecedented risk to our homeland. Last summer,
China tested a missile carrying a hypersonic glide vehicle that went around the world and flew through
low-orbit space before cruising downward and landing within just 24 miles of its target. The test illustrated
that China had made astounding progress on hypersonic weapons, which are difficult for U.S. missile
defense systems to defend.[173] According to Admiral Charles Richard, “In the very near-term China will
possess a credible nuclear triad, supported by its growing stockpile and weapon systems capable of multiple
independently targetable reentry vehicles.”[174]

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s threat to the world was made even more clear through their negligent
handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. China allowed the virus to escape containment, leading to a shuttering
of the global economy and killing more than 6.3 million people worldwide.[175] It is vital that America and our
allies stand together in opposition to the CCP.

The RSC Budget would provide national security funding sufficient to support the Pacific Deterrence
Initiative, which is critical for defending U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific. In addition, as laid out in the
Countering Communist China Act, introduced last Congress by former RSC Chairman Jim Banks, the RSC
Budget would fund a number of the Pentagon’s important, unfunded priorities for INDOPACOM, such as the
Guam Defense System, which is a new integrated air and missile defense system for Guam.[176] The RSC
Budget would support our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific by treating India the same as Japan and
Australia for purposes of accessing national security equipment and services. The RSC Budget would also
enact Rep. Lisa McClain’s (R-MI) STOP CCP Act, an RSC initiative in the 117th Congress, which would impose
sanctions on any person who is or was a member of any National Communist Party Congress of China, as
well as any adult family member of such a person.

Additionally, the RSC budget opposes sending any taxpayer dollars to the Chinese Communist Party. For
this reason, this budget supports Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) No Taxpayer Funding for the Chinese Communist
Party Act.

Taiwan
China’s warplane incursions into Taiwan’s air defense zone nearly doubled in 2022. The same year, China
sent 1,727 planes into Taiwan's air defense identification zone compared to 960 incursions in 2021.[177] In
December of last year, 71 Chinese aircraft flew into Taiwanese airspace, the largest breach in history
(compared to 25 planes in 2021).[178] In addition, China has increased its intimidation of Taiwan through “gray
zone” tactics, or provocations that fall below the threshold of armed aggression, such as coercive economic
measures and disinformation campaigns.[179] According to the U.S. China Economic and Security Review
Commission (USCC), China’s military is at or near the ability to invade Taiwan.[180] The Commission also
noted that “it has become less certain that U.S. conventional military forces alone will continue to deter
China's leaders from initiating an attack on Taiwan.”[181] CIA Director William Burns has stated that Xi has

40
instructed China’s military to “be ready by 2027” to invade Taiwan but that China’s leadership increasingly
has doubts over its ability to successfully invade following Russia’s struggles in its invasion of Ukraine.[182]

The RSC Budget supports efforts to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses through a “porcupine strategy” as
outlined by former National Security Adviser Robert C. O’Brien. Such a strategy would equip Taiwan with
certain lethal weapons, such as anti-ship missiles, air-defense capabilities, and drones, which would force
China to mount a difficult amphibious landing and sustain a prolonged counterinsurgency.[183] In particular,
this could include providing Taipei with significant quantities of the Naval Strike Missile, an anti-ship weapon
which has a range of about 100 nautical miles. Quick strike air-dropped sea mines or other advanced sea
mine technology would help Taiwan create a denied-access zone in the Taiwan Strait. Stinger missiles would
help Taiwan take down Chinese planes and helicopters. The Foreign Assistance Act could be amended to
make Taiwan eligible to receive priority delivery of U.S. excess defense articles.[184]

The RSC Budget also supports efforts such as Rep. Tom Tiffany’s (R-WI) resolution to abandon the “One
China Policy,” strengthening our allies in the region and our coordination with them to ensure proper
containment of CCP aggression. This budget would support normalizing diplomatic relations with Taiwan,
pursuing a trade agreement to push back against China, and ensuring Taiwan is recognized in international
organizations.

The Uyghur Genocide

Between 2017 and 2019, the Chinese government arbitrarily detained over 1 million ethnic Uyghur and
other Muslims in reeducation centers. The CCP also engaged in forced sterilization of Uyghurs and using
Uyghur slave labor most notably in its cotton and solar industries. President Trump and former Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo rightly declared these actions to be genocide. Congress passed the Uyghur Forced Labor
Prevention Act and the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act on a bipartisan basis to respond to China’s
atrocities against the Uyghurs. Unfortunately, enforcement by the Biden Administration has been lacking. As
of April 2023, the Biden Administration has not issued a single sanction pursuant to the Uyghur Human
Rights Policy Act on any entity involved in gross human rights abuses against Uyghurs or in Uyghur forced
labor. In addition, enforcement of provisions in the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, creating a
rebuttable presumption against the import of products from Xinjiang, has also been spotty. Last year the
RSC sent a letter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the presence of red dates with CCP
branding in U.S. supermarkets.[185]

The RSC Budget supports Rep. Ken Buck’s (R-CO) Countering Atrocities through Currency Accountability
Act, which would sever the United States’ currency markets from foreign adversaries that are committing
genocide and crimes against humanity, the most prominent of which is the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP)
genocide in Xinjiang.[186] It also supports former Chairman Jim Banks’ Sanctioning Supporters of Slave Labor
Act, which would place secondary sanctions on entities involved in Uyghur forced labor. This would force
international companies to choose whether to do business with the United States or with companies
involved in Uyghur slave labor.[187]

Malign Influence

41
In addition, the RSC Budget would drain the swamp of foreign influence by weakening the ability of China,
Russia, and other foreign adversaries to promote their malign influence at home. The Budget would support
Rep. Jack Bergman’s (R-MI) Protecting Personal Data from Foreign Adversaries Act, to prevent mobile
applications from engaging in the theft of user data on behalf of a communist country, foreign adversary, or
state sponsor of terrorism. This bill would allow the executive branch to prohibit the use of mobile
applications or software that provide US citizens’ data to a communist country, a foreign adversary, or a state
sponsor of terrorism.[188] It would also support House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael
McCaul’s (R-TX) Deterring America's Technological Adversaries (DATA) Act which would impose sanctions
on applications of software involved in stealing personal data of Americans and require a determination into
whether TikTok or ByteDance met the criteria for such sanctions.[189] The RSC Budget would also combat the
United Front Work Department of the CCP, the CCP’s malign influence arm, which has provided funding to
several D.C. think tanks and American universities by supporting the RSC’s Truth and Testimony reform
resolution which would strengthen the “Truth in Testimony” form required for nongovernment witnesses
under House rules.[190] The RSC Budget would also support the RSC’s Countering Communist Propaganda
Act which would impose sanctions on the United Front Work Department, as well as the RSC’s No
Communist Countries Participating in Lobbying Act which would make it illegal for former members of
Congress to lobby for China or the CCP.[191] In addition, it would support Rep. Morgan Luttrell’s (R-TX)
resolution to prohibit Members, officers, and employees of the House from serving on the board of directors
of any entity which receives funding from, or is affiliated with or owned or controlled by, the United Front
Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party, any other element of the Chinese Communist Party, or
any foreign adversary.

The RSC Budget condemns the CCP’s use of Confucius Institutes to infiltrate our higher education system
and overt threats to manipulate U.S. companies into supporting the policies of the CCP. This budget
supports activities to counter China’s IP theft, forced data and IP transfers, and other methods of industrial
espionage, and would strengthen sanctions related to IP violations. The RSC Budget would adopt Rep.
August Pfluger’s (R-TX) DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act to
prevent higher education institutions with Chinese entities of concern or a Confucius Institute from receiving
taxpayer funding.

Russia
Vladimir Putin did not attempt to invade Ukraine during the Trump Administration. President Trump rebuilt
our military, revitalized NATO by pressuring our allies to pay their fair share and provided lethal assistance to
Europe (including javelin missiles to Ukraine). Yet soon after President Biden came into office, the U.S.
posture towards Russia changed. Weak American energy policies left European nations completely
dependent on Russian oil and gas imports. Whether lifting sanctions on Nordstream 2, caving to Russian
demands for the New Start Treaty or refusing to impose real sanctions over Russia’s hack of the Colonial
Pipeline, President Biden’s consistently weak posture towards Russia did not lead to peace. It created war
and led to the worst security crisis in Europe since World War II. Rather than deter Putin, Biden’s weakness
encouraged him to act more aggressively than ever before.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine threatens European security and is being closely watched by Beijing as it
increasingly lays eyes on Taiwan. Putin’s campaign also has the potential to be the biggest strategic setback

42
for Russian ambitions since its failed invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s. In only one year, Russia has
probably exceeded more combat casualties than all Soviet and Russian wars since 1945 combined with
around 200,000 soldiers killed.[192] Russia has lost almost half of its conventional military capability including
over 300 aircraft and 2,000 tanks—over half of the total Russian tank capacity.[193]

In response to Russia’s invasion, the Biden Administration has responded without a strategy or end game
and has consistently taken steps that may only drag out the conflict, increasing the long-term cost on the
American taxpayer. For instance, President Biden imposed sanctions on Russia only after the invasion, did
not fully kick Russia out of the SWIFT code system, and has failed to impose secondary sanctions on Russian
financial institutions that would apply to China and other countries. In addition, President Biden took real
energy sanctions off the table early on (thanks to pressure from Germany and other countries addicted to
Russian gas) while undercutting U.S. domestic energy production. While the Biden Administration supported
a global price cap on Russian oil, the actual implementation of these measures has not worked out as
planned, especially with India and China buying discounted Russian crude oil.[194] Lethal aid to Ukraine was
also held up before the invasion out of fear of provoking Russia,[195] until finally the Biden Administration
began sending large quantities of stinger missiles and other lethal aid to Ukraine. The Biden Administration
has provided just enough lethal assistance to help Ukraine withstand Russia, which has unnecessarily
prolonged the war and the cost to U.S. taxpayers.

Any taxpayer assistance to Ukraine must be provided in a transparent and accountable manner with
meaningful oversight mechanisms to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, including with respect to non-security
assistance. As John Barsa, former USAID Director for President Trump, pointed out “lots of money being
spent means lots of opportunities to fund ineffective programs, or worse, social justice and other programs
not ‘on-mission.’ The rule of thumb is, or should be, ‘the more that is spent, the more oversight is
needed.”[196] In addition, the Administration has provided to international institutions which have a terrible
track record with regards to accounting of funds. Even worse, many of these international organizations
which the Biden Administration is supporting in Ukraine have a history of promoting abortion or sexual
orientation and gender identity programs (SOGI). [197] In addition, the Administration, and the previous
Congress, has provided almost $1 billion in assistance for Ukrainians living in the U.S. – even those who are
not technically refugees nor even asylum seekers. The RSC Budget would rescind funds provided by the
Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 (P. L. 117-128) which provided $900 million for
TANF, SSI, and Medicaid provided for Ukrainian resettlement to 100,000 Ukrainian and other non-Ukrainian
individuals in response to their displacement from Ukraine.

The RSC Budget emphasizes that any future assistance provided to Ukraine must be done with the American
taxpayer in mind, and lethality should be the goal. Had existing assistance focused more on lethality,[198]
Ukraine may have already won the war, negating the potential need for future financial assistance.

To impose real economic costs on Putin, the RSC Budget continues to support the enactment of the RSC’s
Putin Accountability Act, introduced last Congress by former RSC Chairman Jim Banks (R-IN). The Putin
Accountability Act includes a package of economic sanctions that would hold Putin and the oligarchs around
him accountable, kick Russia out of the SWIFT Code system, and designate Russia as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism. The RSC Budget would also impose secondary sanctions on Russia’s energy sector to cut off

43
Putin’s regime from the billions of dollars per day that he is using to finance his aggression. It would fully
sanction the Russian central bank and the Russian financial sector, rather than just singling out a couple of
Russian banks. In addition, it would sanction Russia’s mineral and timber industry and enact full export
controls. Energy sanctions should require that payments for oil and gas only be permitted into blocked
escrow bank accounts held by non-Russian financial institutions outside of Russia. Finally, the RSC Budget
would impose enhanced sanctions on all oligarchs close to Putin and expand the existing provisions to seize
Russian oligarchic assets, which are already successfully being used to support Ukraine, while respecting
due process. The US, our allies in Europe and the G7 have frozen roughly $300 billion in Russian central
bank assets. These are assets the RSC Budget would use to defray the cost of supporting Ukraine, by buying
weapons, and rebuilding what Russia has destroyed in Ukraine. These frozen assets must not be used as a
bargaining chip or returned to Putin as a reward as part of a possible peace overture. Last, the United States
should allow the transfer of confiscated Iranian weapons, such as those intended to be provided to the
Houthis in Yemen, to go to Ukraine.

As is appropriate, given the war in Ukraine is in Europe’s backyard, European allies and partners are
providing Ukraine more economic and humanitarian assistance than the United States as of this year. The
United Kingdom, Poland, and the Baltics have provided the bulk of this support however. The United States
and Europe should play to our respective strengths, with the United States focused more on providing the
security assistance necessary to end the war as quickly as possible while looking to European contributions
to make up a significantly greater percentage of Ukraine’s direct budget support needs. General Keith
Kellogg of the America First Policy Institute has stated, Europe should contribute dollar for dollar what the
United States is contributing. In that vein, the budget would tie some economic assistance to European
countries to Europe’s contribution to Ukraine. In addition, the RSC Budget supports codifying accountability
provisions ensuring that U.S. assistance goes where it is most needed. Inspectors General responsible for
Ukraine assistance oversight should form a task force which reports quarterly to Congress regarding Ukraine
assistance accountability. Congress should also prohibit any assistance to Ukraine from going to any
international institutions involved in abortion, SOGI-related programs, or any other woke-priorities.

The RSC Budget recognizes that the invasion of Ukraine has been fueled by European reliance on Russian
gas imports. This reliance was facilitated by failed policies propping up inefficient green sources of energy.
To combat this problem, the RSC Budget would implement Rep. August Pfluger’s (R-TX) and Chairman Jim
Banks’ Midland Over Moscow Act. This bill would impose sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to ensure
Germany never revives this Russian malign influence project, require the executive branch to develop a
comprehensive energy strategy related to counter Russian interest, and allow for expedited approval of U.S.
Natural Gas exports to any nation—not just ones with free trade agreements with the U.S. (with exceptions
for countries subject to U.S. sanctions or excluded for national security reasons).

This budget supports the efforts of Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) to pressure
the Biden Administration to reverse its decision to rescind support for the Eastern Mediterranean Gas
Pipeline. The RSC Budget would also combat money laundering and corruption by Russian (and CCP) elites
in the United States by supporting the ENABLERS Act, sponsored by RSC National Security Task Force
Chairman Joe Wilson (R-SC). The bill would close loopholes that crooks and kleptocrats from around the
world use to launder money in the United States. The RSC budget also supports Rep. Wilson’s Bassam

44
Barabandi Rewards for Justice Act, which would allow the State Department to provide funds in its Rewards
for Justice account to individuals who give the U.S. government the identity or ___location of individuals and
entities that defy U.S. sanctions.

The RSC Budget fully supports former President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). Russia continuously fails to comply with the intent of the treaty. [199] [200]
Further, the RSC Budget strongly opposes President Biden’s re-entry into the New START arms treaty with
Russia that would not include China and would allow Russia to continue building tactical nuclear weapons
while drastically limiting our own stockpiles.

Iran
The Biden Administration’s efforts to re-enter the failed Iran nuclear agreement have not let to success. In
fact, Iran’s regime is closer than ever before to a nuclear weapon and has begun enriching uranium close to
weapons-grade levels.[201] The regime continues to back militias that attacked U.S. bases in Syria, killing an
American contractor as recently as last month.[202] However, the Biden Administration still has not shut the
door on a nuclear agreement, even as it says that current talks with Iran are “not on our agenda” due to Iran’s
ruthless crackdown on unprecedented protests prompted by the killing of Mahsa Amini.[203]

Rather than continue a failed policy of maximum concessions to the regime in Tehran, the RSC Budget
supports building upon President Trump and Secretary Pompeo’s successful maximum pressure campaign
against Iran. To this end, the RSC Budget supports codifying the campaign through the Maximum Pressure
Act, sponsored by former RSC Chairman Jim Banks (R-IN). The Act would implement the toughest package
of sanctions on Iran ever proposed by Congress. The Maximum Pressure Act has garnered the support of
Secretary Pompeo and a long list of foreign policy organizations. The RSC Budget also supports Rep. Bob
Good’s (R-VA) Iran China Accountability Act, which would block any taxpayer dollars from being used to
advance a nuclear agreement with Iran until it has terminated its cash ties with China and terminated its ties
to terrorist groups like Hamas.

Iran continues to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, seeks a nuclear weapon, and desires the
destruction of the State of Israel, our closest regional ally. Iran has given aid and comfort to Hamas,
Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, as well as other Iranian-backed terrorist militias. The Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has created, sponsored, and commanded a worldwide legion of tens of
thousands of militia fighters from as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan who, in part due to the cash provided
by President Obama's failed nuclear deal, have created a "land bridge" where such militias now control vast
territory leading to the border of Israel. This is a geographic area far larger than ISIS at its peak. The RSC
Budget supports President Trump’s designation of the entire IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO)
and would codify this designation and other sanctions on the IRGC. According to the State Department, the
IRGC “is responsible for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq since 2003. This
accounts for 17 percent of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011.”[204] Still, the Biden
Administration considered the idea of removing the IRGC from the FTO list, or only designating one of its
subparts such as the Quds Force as part of its nuclear negotiations with the regime.[205] The RSC Budget
would also enact the MAHSA Act, introduced by former RSC Chairman Jim Banks, to keep in place sanctions

45
on Iran’s Supreme Leader, Iran’s President, and other institutions of Iran’s state involved in the brutal
crackdown.

U.S. aid for our allies in the region, especially Israel and its Iron Dome, helps provide a critical deterrent to
the Islamic Republic. Israel continues to face threats to its existence from an emboldened Iran that continues
to support Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists on its doorstep. The goal of former President Trump to work
toward lasting stability in the Middle East region is critical. The RSC Budget applauds his successful efforts
to bring about the Abraham Accords and shore up our allies across these regions. Additionally, the RSC
Budget would adopt Rep. August Pfluger’s (R-TX) Expediting Israeli Aerial Refueling Act, which would
require the Air Force to ensure Israeli pilots can successfully operate and maintain the KC-46 aircraft. Israel is
set to receive KC-46 aircraft from the United States in 2025 and this bill would ensure the Israeli army can
effectively operate the aircraft in order to deter the Iranians.[206]

Iran also continues to support Houthi terrorists in Yemen and has provided them with ballistic missiles,
including those that were used to attack Saudi Arabia. The RSC Budget opposes President Biden’s removal
of the Houthis from the terrorist list, as well as President Biden’s withdrawal of support for Saudi Arabia in
its operations against Houthi rebels in Yemen. This move has not led to peace and has only emboldened the
Houthis, who have increased their attacks on Saudi Arabia. The RSC Budget recognizes the importance of
Saudi Arabia’s military operations supporting the legitimate government in Yemen and combatting the
Iran-backed Houthis.

In countering Iran, it is vital that we prohibit U.S. aid from going to Iranian puppet regimes in the Middle East.
Lebanon’s government has come fully under Hezbollah’s control as the terrorist group has a monopoly on
the use of force in the country. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) has also been involved in the detention
and torture of U.S. citizens such as Amer Fakhoury, who died shortly after being released from Lebanese
prison.[207] Accordingly, the RSC Budget supports cutting off aid for the LAF and requiring sanctions
determinations for current and former Lebanese security officials involved in the detention and torture of U.S.
citizens. This would include Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim, the former head of the Lebanese General Security
Directorate. In January 2023, the Administration rolled out its program to provide direct salary payments
totaling $72 million to the LAF and Internal Security Forces (ISF), essentially providing them a slush fund in
a country where Hezbollah’s economic presence is endemic.[208] The RSC Budget also supports cutting
assistance to Iraq’s Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense until Iraq’s security forces are no longer under
the effective control of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). The PMF is a group of militias and includes
the Badr Corps, which is commanded by the IRGC and attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in December
2019.

The RSC Budget supports cutting off aid to United Nations programs in areas of Syria that are held by the
Assad regime. Even former Obama Administration Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford has admitted this aid
has been diverted to directly fund the brutal Assad regime, Iran’s main ally in the region.[209] Following the
earthquake which struck Turkey and Syria in February 2023, the brutal Assad regime blocked humanitarian
assistance to Syria for several days with the exception of aid given through the UN—aid that was diverted
and stolen.[210]

46
Iran continues its material support for the murderous Assad regime in Syria. The IRGC directly assists
Assad’s forces which are responsible for the worst human rights crisis of the 21st Century. This has allowed
Syria to become a haven for terror groups while flooding Europe with refugees. The Biden Administration
has refused to enforce the bipartisan Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. Instead, the administration gave a
green light to Syrian participation in regional electricity and gas deals, a direct violation of the Caesar Act.
One of these deals would allow Egypt to sell natural gas to Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon by moving the
gas through Syria via the Arab Gas Pipeline. Unlike the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration has
given its tacit approval to countries pursuing normalization with the Assad regime. In fact, State Department
Assistant Secretary Barbara Leaf now says that regional governments should pursue engagement with the
Assad regime so long as they receive benefits in return.[211] To counter these efforts, the RSC Budget would
oppose efforts to normalize the regime by Turkey, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other Middle Eastern
governments by enacting the Assad Regime Anti-Normalization Act sponsored by RSC National Security
Task Force Chairman Joe Wilson.

Finally, the Assad regime has been described as “the world’s biggest drug cartel,” producing millions of pills
of Captagon at more than double the scale of illicit drug production by Mexican drug cartels.[212] The RSC
Budget supports efforts by Rep. French Hill (R-AR) for the Department of Treasury to label Syria as a major
illicit drug producing country—something the Biden Administration has failed to do and the Treasury
Department designating the regime as a transnational criminal organization.[213]

Salafi-jihadi terrorism and Afghanistan

The focus on great power competition should not blind us to the continuing threats we face from
Salafi-jihadi organizations. The threat from ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Salafi-jihadi groups lingers, especially
after President Biden’s disastrous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. He effectively handed the
country to the Taliban, also leaving behind billions of dollars of American weapons and equipment in
Afghanistan. Watchdog organization Open the Books estimated that 650,000 weapons, including 350,000
M4 and M16 rifles, 65,000 machine guns, 25,000 grenade launchers, and 2,500 mortars and howitzers are
now in the Taliban’s hands. An additional 600,000 assault rifles, 2,000 armored vehicles, and 40 aircraft,
including Black Hawks, may also be in their possession, according to other reports.[214] Despite the Biden
Administration’s claims, the Taliban has not severed ties with al-Qaeda. Lt. Gen. Scott D. Berrier, the Director
of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has said the “current assessment probably conservatively is one to two
years for al-Qaeda to build some capability to at least threaten the homeland."[215] In addition to
Afghanistan, ISIS and al-Qaeda are now shifting their operations from the Middle East and South Asia to
new theaters in Africa. ISIS and al-Qaeda have been rapidly reconstituting themselves in the Sahel and
gaining control over large swaths of territory in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger by capitalizing on ethnic and
tribal tensions.

The RSC Budget supports efforts to root out bases of operations and training grounds for Salafi-jihadi
groups. It would codify Executive Order 13224, solidifying the ability to impose sanctions on those that
support terrorism, and designate the Taliban in its entirety as a foreign terrorist organization (currently only
the Pakistani Taliban is designated as such). The RSC Budget would also prohibit any humanitarian
assistance provided to Afghanistan from getting into the hands of the Taliban. The U.S. should not work with
the United Nations or the Afghan-government, and instead, as recommended by the Vandenberg Coalition’s

47
Afghanistan Working Group, work with the existing network of U.S. partner organizations in Afghanistan
which have a history of speaking up against the Taliban.[216] It would also require a report regarding military
equipment left behind by the Biden Administration in Afghanistan, including an assessment of how such
weapons are being used by the Taliban to threaten Americans. This budget also supports stabilization
efforts in Africa to prevent ISIS or al-Qaeda from taking root in vulnerable nations.

North Korea
In 2022, North Korea launched at least 95 ballistic and other missiles, more than in any previous year.[217]
Kim Jong Un also launched at least nine intercontinental ballistic missiles since the beginning of 2022.[218]
These missile launches have continued this year and Kim Jong-un has ordered his military to intensify drills
to prepare for a “real war.”[219] In March 2023, North Korea fired multiple cruise missiles from a submarine, its
first launch of cruise missiles from a submarine.[220] After more than a two years in office, the Biden
Administration has not imposed sanctions on entities, individuals, and financial institutions in China as part
of its North Korea sanctions designations. In contrast, President Trump imposed sanctions on Chinese banks
doing business with North Korea and refused to lift a single sanction on North Korea as part of his talks with
the dictator Kim Jong Un. The RSC Budget opposes any efforts to provide sanctions relief to North Korea
unless the regime undergoes permanent, verifiable denuclearization.

In addition, the RSC Budget supports holding the rogue regime accountable for its abysmal human rights
record, including through supporting efforts to allow outside information into North Korea. To counter the
threat of North Korea’s increasingly advanced ballistic missile system, the RSC Budget supports continued
funding of our own advanced missile-defense systems, including the deployment of additional midcourse
interceptors and terminal high-altitude area defense systems.

Keeping Woke Politics out of the Military

The RSC Budget remains committed to an effective, strong military force focused on defending the
homeland and free of politicization of any type. Identity politics and Critical Race Theory (CRT) have no place
in our military. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration sees things differently. Defense Secretary Lloyd
Austin seems more interested in ridding military ranks of “extremism”[221] and making climate change a
“national security priority”[222] than taking on the real threats we face in China, Russia and Iran.

These policies not only waste time and taxpayer dollars but affect soldier morale and harm military
recruitment. Under the Biden Administration, the Pentagon spent almost 6 million man-hours on woke
discussions about extremism and "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" training.[223] While military recruitment
continues to decline, the Air Force has gone on a DEI hiring spree, hiring several diversity officers, many of
whom have six-figure salaries.[224] These positions are used to push radical left wing and even racist ideas.
Kelisa Wing, who was appointed in 2021 as diversity, equity, and inclusion chief at the Defense
Department’s Education Activity (DoDEA), even called for a “racial reckoning” and “revolution” and said she
was “exhausted by 99% of the white men in education and 95% of the white women. Where can I get a
break from white nonsense for a while?" Yet Ms. Wing received no disciplinary action from the Pentagon.[225]

Woke indoctrination extends to the service academies. The U.S. Naval Academy has taken a number of
actions to promote Critical Race Theory (CRT) in its curriculum.[226] Biden’s Pentagon has reversed guidance

48
issued in the Trump Administration that prohibited the promotion of CRT within the Department.[227] In 2022,
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Gilday placed Ibram X Kendi's book How to Be an Antiracist on
the Navy's reading list. Kendi’s work promotes fundamentally anti-American ideas, such as the notion that
the U.S. is a racist country and that capitalism is a racist idea.[228] In February 2022, National Defense
University’s Institute for Strategic Studies hosted an event on Wednesday making "the case for global justice
and democratic socialism" as a means to combat China’s rise.[229]

Shockingly, it was revealed early last year that the Department of Defense spent 6 million man hours on
woke training and programing. Specifically, the military spent 5.3 million hours and $535,000 carrying out
the stand down order from Secretary Austin. The military also spent 530,000 hours and $477,000 on
diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI) training, according to data given to Senate Republicans. For FY 2024, DOD
has requested $114.7 million “for dedicated diversity and inclusion activities.”[230]

These woke policies are having a major impact on recruiting. Last year was the worst recruiting year for the
U.S. Army since the military became an all-volunteer force in 1973. While the other branches managed to hit
their recruiting goals on paper, they did so at the expense of 2023 recruiting numbers by dipping into
“delayed entry” candidates, putting them measurably behind for this year.

The President’s budget would also undermine the traditional basis of American military might by directing
over $5.1 billion, an increase of $2 billion from last year, in funding towards climate change initiatives.[231]
Last year the Pentagon even conducted a war game in how to combat climate change.[232] In fact, the
Department requested $27.6 million for FY 2023 incorporating climate risks into modeling, simulation, and
wargames.[233] Biden’s Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth has said that the “Army must adapt across
our entire enterprise and purposefully pursue greenhouse gas mitigation strategies to reduce climate risks”
and the Army has put forward a plan for “greening” its operations, including through providing “100 percent
carbon-pollution-free electricity for Army installations’ needs by 2030,” and achieving a “50 percent
reduction in [greenhouse gas] emissions from all Army buildings by 2032.”[234]

The RSC Budget would prohibit funding for DEI activities and ban teaching CRT in the U.S. military and in
educational institutions under the Department of Defense. It would also defund all woke programs and
priorities in the military, including programs established to further the Democrats’ so-called “green” agenda.

Ensuring an Efficient National Defense

The RSC Budget remains committed to a strong national defense but recognizes that fiscal discipline is
essential to a sustainable and capable military. As expensive as peace-time military operations are, major
wars demand the quick expenditure of large amounts of capital. The American Revolution, the Civil War, and
World War I all required adding roughly 30 percent of GDP to the national debt. World War II alone required
roughly 60 percent. We must ensure the federal government’s fiscal house so America can win in another
worst-case scenario. The grievous level and trajectory of our national debt led a bipartisan group of leading
national security officials to write that “[o]ur long-term debt is the single greatest threat to our national
security.”[235] Regardless of how capable our standing military is, if our enemies know we cannot afford to
use it for long, it will not serve as an effective deterrent or guarantee our freedom and safety.

49
Congress and the Department of Defense should commit to comprehensive acquisition reform, not just to
prevent wasteful spending, but also to ensure America’s warfighters have the best equipment available.
Until 2018, “DOD was the only large federal agency not under full financial statement audit.”[236]

Current Department of Defense contracting requirements are burdensome and have only grown over time.
Reducing contracting requirements and increasing competition would increase speed and could save billions
of dollars at the Department. The RSC Budget would reduce such requirements and also require the
Department to break up prime contracts into smaller awards so small businesses and others can compete
for the awards. In 2021 alone, the top six Defense Primes received over $120 billion in defense contracts,[237]
while in the same year small businesses received only $17 billion of the awards.[238]

The Department of Defense currently employs approximately 340,000 active-duty military personnel to
perform support functions in commercial positions. As CBO has pointed out “those functions require skills
that could be obtained from the private sector so that, in principle, those same positions could be filled by
civilian employees.”[239] The Budget would replace military personnel in these commercial positions with
civilian employees, which, according to the Heritage Foundation, would result in $19.6 billion in the next ten
years.[240]

The RSC Budget would focus on providing school choice to military families by allowing military dependents
to utilize education savings accounts (ESAs) and provide for the transfer of children to local schools. As The
Heritage Foundation has pointed out, only 4 percent of military-connected children use the military’s
operated school system (the Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) system),
making this system unnecessary.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Members of Congress are frequently lobbied to
support adding funding to the annual defense appropriation for medical research on a wide variety of
diseases and topics.”[241] In recent years, the defense budget has included over half a billion dollars for the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP). While medical research is a laudable activity,
many of the programs funded within the CDMRP are not for military-specific conditions and are duplicative
of the type of research done at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).[242] According to the Taxpayers for
Common Sense, “These programs are clearly earmarks and therefore take money away from other necessary
Defense Department functions.”[243] The RSC Budget would transition the non-defense related medical
research out of the defense budget.

DOD should not waste valuable taxpayer dollars on inefficient forms of energy. Energy needs should be met
through the most cost-effective and tactically sound methods possible. The DOD should be prohibited from
entering into any contract for the procurement or production of any non-petroleum-based fuel for use as the
same purpose or as a drop-in substitute for petroleum. Further, the Armed Forces should be exempt from
procurement requirements for clean-energy vehicles and renewable energy portfolio standards for DOD
facilities. The RSC Budget also opposes efforts by Democrats to turn the annual defense authorization bill
into a testing ground for its progressive social and environmental goals.

50
Finally, the Budget would put in place a zero-sum rule, prohibiting the creation of any new Assistant
Secretary, Under Secretary, and Deputy Assistant Secretary roles at DOD unless others are eliminated on a
one-for-one basis.

The Needs of Our Armed Forces

The Trump Administration’s efforts to rebuild our military have strengthened our forces, made troops and
equipment more ready for combat, addressed readiness shortfalls, and modernized our military. President
Trump sought to overcome the consequences of decades of delayed weapons modernization.[244] Delays in
modernization eroded the competitive advantage that our Armed Forces have enjoyed with China and
Russia. China already has the world’s largest standing army, navy, coast guard, maritime militia, and
sub-strategic missile force.[245] The Defense Department’s China military power report judges that the
Chinese military is qualitatively ahead of the U.S. military in land-based missiles and integrated air defenses,
including new technologies such as hypersonic and directed-energy weapons.[246] The Heritage Foundation’s
2023 Index of Military Strength explained “As currently postured, the U.S. military is at growing risk of not
being able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests. It is rated as weak relative to
the force needed to defend national interests on a global stage against actual challenges in the world as it is
rather than as we wish it were.”[247]

The RSC Budget would ensure that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to keep
America safe and counter the growing threat posed by China and Russia in this new era of great power
competition.

The Navy
Since the Allied victory in World War II, the forward deployment of U.S. Armed Forces has been a key
instrument in maintaining global order and in securing freedom of navigation to promote trade and
prosperity around the world. A key component of this force structure has been a robust effort to sustain the
most capable and agile Navy in the world as a “global force for good.” Our Navy currently has a fleet of 298
deployable ships,[248] less than China’s fleet of 355 ships.[249] This fleet is half the size of what it was under
the Reagan Administration (592 ships).[250] China plans to increase the size of its fleet to 460 ships by
2030.[251] The RSC Budget rejects President Biden’s plan to decommission eleven Navy ships next year,
including two relatively young Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), as well as three Ticonderoga-class cruisers,
which are some of the ships most feared by China’s People Liberation Army. His budget would also
decommission dock landing ships USS Germantown (LSD-42), USS Gunston Hall (LSD-44) and USS Tortuga
(LSD-46) and cruiser USS Vicksburg (CG-69).[252] The President’s budget request would only purchase nine
new ships, which is inadequate. The President’s budget would specifically purchase: one Columbia-class
ballistic-missile submarine, two Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, two Virginia-class attack boats,
two Constellation-class frigates, one John Lewis-class fleet oiler and one next-generation submarine tender
replacement known as AS(X). The service sped up the first AS(X) procurement to FY 2024 from a previously
planned start of FY 2025. In addition to the battle force ship request, the Navy wants funding for one
Landing Craft, Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program, two Landing Craft Utility 1700s, and two used
sealift ships.

51
The Navy’s shipbuilding account had been neglected for the greater part of a decade, leading to a severe
readiness crisis and a series of deadly accidents. The RSC’s Budget supports investing in our shipbuilding
account in order to reestablish our Navy’s global reach and capabilities and deter aggressive Chinese naval
activities. Specifically, the RSC Budget continues to support the SHIPS Act which makes it the official policy
of the United States to achieve the Navy’s minimum requirement for a 355-ship fleet.[253]

The Air Force

The Air Force is key to our defense posture in the face of a rising China. The communist nation has invested
massive resources into a strategy of “anti-access, area denial” (A2/AD), which would prevent the U.S. Air
Force from projecting power in the event of conflict. In 2018, the Air Force performed a congressionally
mandated study to assess its force structure and modernization requirements by 2030. The study found that
386 squadrons would be needed by 2030 to meet the demands of the Trump administration’s 2018 National
Defense Strategy. In comparison, at the end of the Cold War, the Air Force had 401 operational
squadrons.[254] In addition, a number of the Air Force’s aircraft will reach the end of their service life in the
next decade, including the Air Force’s 234 F-15C/Ds.[255] As Mackenzie Eaglen has pointed out, “80 percent
of the Air Force’s roughly 2,050 fighters are A-10s, F-15C/Ds, F-15Es, and F-16C/Ds—all originally designed
in the 1970s and purchased through the 1990s.”[256]

The Air Force must be able to meet modernization goals in time to avoid fielding an outdated fleet and
delaying next-generation aircraft programs.[257] For FY 2024, President Biden’s budget would retire more
aircraft than it proposes to purchase. The 310 retirements it seeks is far greater than the 150 retirements it
recommended in his FY 2023 budget.[258] In addition, President Biden’s Budget only funds weapon systems
sustainment (WSS) for the Air Force at 83 percent of requirements.[259]

The RSC Budget would invest in Air Force modernization to meet current threat requirements. The RSC
Budget would support the procurement and fielding of the B-21 Raider Long-Range Strike Bomber,
eventually replacing older aircraft like the B-52, which first flew in 1952, as well as procurement of F-35 and
F-15EX fighters in order to maintain effective force structure to deter current and future threats. Both China
and Russia have dramatically increased their procurement of 5th generation fighters including the Sukhoi Su
57 and the Chengdu J-20.

The Army
Despite the shifting of defense priorities to the Navy and Air Force, the Army continues to require investment
in both readiness and modernization. General Milley has said the Regular Army should be in the
neighborhood of 540,000 soldiers,[260] while it sits at 473,000 soldiers today, and may drop as low as
445,000 before the end of this fiscal year.[261] Ryan McCarthy, Army Secretary under President Trump, has
stated that the Army needs at least 500,000 soldiers.[262] Furthermore, the M-1 tank and the Bradley tank
are now 40 years old and need replacements. Attempts to replace the Army’s thousands of Bradley tanks
have been underway since 2003. Given current budget constraints, the Army may have to slash troop
strength and training to fund its “Big Six” modernization priorities: Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF),
Next-Generation Combat Vehicles (NGCV), Future Vertical Lift (FVL), air and missile defense, secure
battlefield networks, and soldier lethality. Of these, the most pressing priority is the modernization of
long-range artillery and missiles in the LRPF, which would replace the Cold War-era ATACMS.[263] As the

52
Congressional Research Service (CRS) has noted, “Both the 2018 National Defense Strategy and the Army’s
Multi-Domain Operations operational concept call for improved Army LRPF capability to counter what has
been described as Russian and Chinese anti-access, area denial (A2/AD) strategies designed to limit the
freedom of movement and action of U.S. forces in both Europe and the Pacific region.”[264]

The RSC Budget supports allocation of resources needed to advance the Big Six priorities, especially the
procurement of LRPFs. The RSC Budget also recognizes that enlarging the Army’s force structure would be
appropriate to meet Combatant Command needs. Finally, it supports the continued deployment of Terminal
High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) batteries, Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, Future Attack
Reconnaissance Aircraft, and the procurement of CH-47 Block II heavy-lift helicopters.

The Marine Corps

In entering the new era of great-power competition, the Marine Corps has pivoted its focus away from land
armies for ground warfare in the Middle East and South Asia and toward a new concept focused on
amphibious assault in the Indo-Pacific. In implementing this new concept, Marine Corps Commandant
General David Berger has envisioned smaller units of Marines operating across a large geographic area. As
Eaglen has pointed out, "this will drive the need for longer-range transportation, communications, sensors,
and fires to support a more distributed, agile force." [265] In modernizing its ground forces, the Marines will be
replacing the aging Assault Amphibious Vehicle with the Amphibious Combat Vehicle. It will also be
replacing the high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle with the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) and will
soon replace the almost 40-year-old Light Armored Vehicle with a new vehicle. The Marines will also be
replacing the F-35B/C and CH-53K aircraft in the next 5 years.

The RSC Budget supports the expansion of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and recognizes the Marine Corps’
vital participation in those efforts. The RSC Budget supports the development of the Marine Corps'
long-range precision fires capability, which is key to deterring the Chinese military throughout the Pacific
region. The RSC Budget opposes efforts by House Democrats to slash funding for the program.[266] This
budget supports the Marine Corps’ development of Ground-Based Anti-Ship Missiles and the procurement
of Marine Corps Tomahawk missiles. It also supports the construction of 31 amphibious ships as required by
the Marine Corps Commandant. Finally, it supports the Marine Corps’ continued replacement of its Assault
Amphibious Vehicle, and plans to replace the Light Armed Vehicle, and continued procurement of CH-53K
heavy-lift helicopters, and F-35B-Cs.

The Space Force

The RSC Budget continues to support the Space Force and former President Trump’s goal of ensuring
American dominance in space. The Space Force is absolutely essential in the new era of great power
competition, especially as both China and Russia have established a space force of their own and continue to
upgrade their capabilities.[267] As John Venable from The Heritage Foundation has noted, "The U.S. is only
now reaching parity with Russia and China’s counter-space capabilities."[268]

The Space Force has just six dedicated satellites for space situational awareness (SSA) and launched the last
two in 2021. As John Venable of The Heritage Foundation has noted, this will still be far too few sensors to

53
monitor the satellites of China and Russia.[269] Furthermore, despite the establishment of the Space Force in
2019, only around half of all space-related assets and personnel have been assigned to the Space Force.[270]

The RSC Budget supports the fielding of a new constellation of less costly surveillance platforms in low
earth orbit (LEO) by the Space Force. It supports placing space-related assets in the primary responsibility of
the Space Force. In addition, the RSC Budget supports the continued development of the X-37 Orbital Test
Vehicle for the Space Force, as well as the deployment of space-based radars capable of rapid revisit rates.
Finally, the RSC Budget continues to support the creation of an independent acquisition office for the Space
Force.

Nuclear, Space, and Cyberspace Capacities

Regardless of the advances and investments made in America’s conventional forces, a failure in the U.S.’s
nuclear, cyberspace and outer space capabilities could incapacitate our conventional military and leave our
homeland vulnerable to attack. The RSC Budget continues to support the Trump administration’s goals to
maintain and modernize our nuclear warheads, our triad of delivery vehicles, and our command and control
and early warning systems. This budget also supports new low-yield device development, which adds
flexibility to our nuclear arsenal.[271] It is imperative that the U.S. maintains the ability to deploy both
strategic and low-yield weapons by submarine and land-based missiles, as well as air-launched and
dropped vehicles. It is also essential that we maintain our capacity to produce the plutonium-239 and tritium
(heavy hydrogen) that is required to produce warheads and keep existing ones operational.[272] The RSC
Budget supports the B83 nuclear gravity bomb, which is the sole weapon capable of blasting deeply buried
targets and which the Biden administration has proposed cutting.[273] The RSC Budget also rejects the Biden
administration’s efforts to set back nuclear deterrence and cancel the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear
(SLCM-N).[274] The SLCM-N was proposed as part of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review as a
regional, sea-based nuclear launch option, in response to Russia’s and China’s growing nuclear forces.[275]

In addition, this budget supports the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, the land-based intercontinental
ballistic missile system to replace the obsolete Minutemen III missiles. While Russia, China and North Korea
continue to expand their nuclear and missile capacities, a failure in any component of our nuclear and missile
systems could allow these adversaries to negate all the other abilities of our military and to destroy critical
military infrastructure, including even our ability to use nuclear weapons in a second-strike capacity. As such,
the RSC Budget flatly rejects the Biden Administration’s misguided and ill-informed plan to diminish our
nuclear capabilities and block modernization of these vehicles and warheads.

Beyond the commonly discussed threat from nuclear weapons, they can be used to generate an
electromagnetic pulse (EMP).[276] A single nuclear device, detonated at high altitudes, can produce an EMP
capable of destroying electronic devices and power grids over a large region of the U.S. This threat, and the
developments of both the Russians and Chinese to produce anti-satellite weapons, highlights the prudence
of former President Trump to centralize military space functions under a Space Force so the United States
can continue to enhance its presence and capacities in outer space.[277] This budget supports the goals of
former President Trump to ensure the U.S. is capable of intercepting long range missiles, most of which
would traverse space if used, and can have adequate offensive and defensive abilities with regard to
satellites. The satellite network around our planet is vital for banking, telecommunications, GPS, and a host

54
of other military and civilian systems that support our modern life and national security. Without the ability
to operate in outer space, our enemies could easily destroy these systems, on which every American relies.

Furthermore, the RSC Budget supports continued investments in U.S. cyber operations. This arena is
similarly vital to Americans’ everyday lives. The failure of our military to adequately defend cyberspace could
allow an adversary to incapacitate our entire electrical grid. This would bring our nation to the edge of
destruction. This is not simply a future threat. For instance, North Korea and Russia have launched repeated
cyber-attacks on Americans.[278] [279]

International Assistance Reform

The RSC Budget views international assistance as a tool to help develop a freer, more prosperous, more
stable, and more peaceful planet. However, it recognizes that it can also be used as a tool of the left to
spread woke ideology. It is also an arena of the budget of great waste and fraud. Still, the RSC Budget
supports efforts that directly advance American interests and defend traditional human rights and freedoms.
We should ensure that U.S. aid is used for its intended purpose and not to support corrupt regimes.

In addition, the RSC Budget would ban any funds from going to any attempt by the State Department to
promote anti-American ideas such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) or to allow the U.N. to audit the U.S. human
rights record. Last year, the State Department invited the U.N. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on minority issues for an official visit to examine the U.S. human
rights record. The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, E. Tendayi Achiume, is a member of
the critical race studies program at UCLA and is a proponent of CRT.[280]

The RSC Budget would also reform and replace the State Department and the Foreign and Civil Service
systems with a modernized hiring standard based on merit. The RSC Budget would also reform U.S. global
broadcasting programs and counter-disinformation efforts by moving public diplomacy bureaus, and the
Global Engagement Center, out of the State Department and into a reconstituted U.S. Information Agency
(USIA) run by a chief executive officer. A reconstituted USIA should also be able to allow its media
organizations to subject grants to a competitive process for both for-profit and nonprofit private
organizations to create content to counter foreign disinformation efforts. In the media landscape, the private
sector is more dynamic and creative than government bureaucrats at the Department of State.

The RSC Budget supports a realistic review of our support of multilateral and international organizations in
the mold of the United Kingdom’s multilateral aid review. Such a review should withdraw support from
international organizations that are corrupt and unfixable, such as both the World Health Organization and
the UN Human Rights Council. Upon withdrawal, the United States could attempt to establish alternative
mechanisms of multilateral cooperation with democratic partners. At the same time, the RSC Budget would
seek to reform other international organizations or UN bodies that the U.S. remains a part of to work with
allies and partners to compete against China.

55
56
57
Congressional and Presidential budgets reflect their authors’ values. The RSC remains committed to policies
that abide by the Constitution and defend the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Conversely, the Left
believes the rights of individuals come from the government and that the Constitution can be ignored. The
RSC is committed to stopping this movement and safeguarding our foundational values.

This section of the RSC Budget is dedicated to preserving our constitutional rights and to championing
values that set the foundation for a prosperous future in America.

The Right to Life

Conservatives celebrate the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision as a historic victory in
the effort to defend innocent life and to return to the Constitution as it was written. Still, it is important to
remember the toll that abortion has already taken. Abortions are responsible for over 1 billion lives lost
since 1920,[281] and 73 million lost annually (equal to all the deaths of the Second World War).[282]

Since Dobbs, the Biden Administration has made it one of their primary missions to advance even more
radical abortion policies. For example, the President has directed the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to
order pharmacies to provide abortion pills, undermining the laws of various states and risking the health of
mothers and children.[283] Shamefully, the President is also working to use Department of Defense and
Veterans Affairs funding in violation of current law and decades of bipartisan precedent to promote his
radical stance of taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand. The federal government simply should not support
or subsidize interstate abortion travel in any way. The RSC Budget recognizes that current federal policies
fail to uphold the 14th Amendment and protect the right to life for our nation’s most vulnerable and opposes
any federal policy that directly or indirectly facilitates or subsidizes abortions. Additionally, the RSC Budget
supports the heroic efforts made by countless families, individuals, and organizations to provide resources to
mothers and children in need including through crisis pregnancy centers.

Additionally, the RSC Budget applauds the following measures designed to advance the pro-life cause:
● Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) and RSC Chairman Kevin Hern’s legislation to rescind the FDA rule
removing safety protocols for the abortion pill mifepristone.
● Rep. Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would make it a federal
crime to transport a minor across state lines without parental consent for the purpose of obtaining an
abortion. It would also make it a federal crime for a physician to perform an abortion on an
out-of-state minor without notifying the minor's parent.
● Rep. Virginia Foxx’s (R-NC) bill, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would prohibit
abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, from receiving Title X funding.
● Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-PA) bill, the Heartbeat Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions after a
fetal heartbeat has been detected. Last year, the RSC’s Steering Committee officially endorsed the
Heartbeat Protection Act.
● Rep. Alex Mooney’s (R-WV) Life at Conception Act, which would provide 14th amendment protections
at all stages of life.
● Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-MO) bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would
protect infant survivors of abortion and ensure that all infants born alive receive the same degree of
care, regardless of their gestational age.

58
● Rep. Chris Smith’s (R-NJ) Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act,
which would prohibit abortions after 15 weeks.
● Rep. Michelle Fischbach’s (R-MN) Protecting Life and Taxpayers Act of 2023 would require entities to
certify that they will not provide abortion in order to receive federal funding.
● Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) bill, the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act would amend Medicaid
to allow states to prevent abortion providers from receiving funding.
● Former RSC Chairman Jim Banks’ (R-IN) bill, the Taxpayer Conscience Protection Act, which would
require public reporting on Medicaid funds given to abortion providers.
● Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer’s (R-MO) bill, the Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act, which would
prohibit fetal tissue research on remains obtained from induced abortions.
● Former RSC Chairman Jim Banks’ (R-IN) bill, the Patients First Act, which would promote the use of
adult stem cells for research purposes and prohibit the use of fetal stem cells or the creation of a
human embryo for research purposes.
● Rep. Debbie Lesko’s (R-AZ) bill, the Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act, which would ban
dismemberment abortions.
● Rep. Ron Estes’ (R-KS) bill, the Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act, which would ban the
performance of an abortion because a baby received a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome.
● Rep. Bob Latta’s (R-OH) bill, the Support and Value Expectant Moms and Babies Act, which would
block the approval of new drugs that cause medical abortion.
● Former RSC Chairman Jim Banks’ (R-IN) bill to prohibit President Biden from rescinding President
Trump’s Title X family planning rule, which stops funds from going to entities, such as Planned
Parenthood, that use Title X funds to provide abortion.
● Rep. Chris Smith’s (R-NJ) bill, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full
Disclosure Act, which would permanently codify abortion prohibitions like the Hyde Amendment.
This legislation would also prohibit the use of Obamacare premium tax credits, cost-sharing
subsidies, and small business tax credits for being used to purchase health plans that include elective
abortion coverage.
● Rep. Andy Harris’ (R-MD) bill, the Conscience Protection Act, which would prevent government at the
local, state, or federal level from discriminatory practices and penalization of health care providers
that do not participate in highly controversial abortion services. Similarly, Rep. Buddy Carter’s (R-GA)
Pharmacist Conscience Protection Act would protect the conscience rights of pharmacists who object
to abortion.
● Rep. Jason Smith’s (R-MO) No Abortion Bonds Act, which would remove the tax-exempt status of
any bond that goes to an abortion provider or abortion clinic.
● Rep. Ronny Jackson’s (R-TX) legislation to prevent the Department of Defense from paying for, or
reimbursing the cost of, abortions.
● Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent the Department of
Veterans Affairs from providing abortions.
● Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-MO) Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which would ban discrimination against
the unborn on the basis of sex and ban sex-selective abortions.
● Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) Telehealth Abortion Prevention Act, which would ensure that telehealth
does not open a back door to abortion providers by making it a federal crime to distribute chemical

59
 abortion drugs without a physical examination. The bill also requires abortion providers to be
physically present for a chemical abortion procedure.
● Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) Protecting Life on College Campus Act, which would prohibit federal funding
for educational institutions that partner with or host student health services that provide abortions.
● Rep. Brian Babin’s (R-TX) Protecting Life in Crisis Act, which would prohibit funds from COVID relief
packages from being used for abortion and health plans that fund abortion.
● Rep. Ralph Norman’s (R-SC) Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act, which
would require states to provide certain abortion data to the Centers for Disease Control as a condition
of receiving federal family planning funds.
● Rep. Tracey Mann’s (R-KS) legislation to require the president to provide information regarding
forthcoming executive actions on abortion to Congress.
● Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) resolution to withdraw Obamacare’s Section 1303 rule allowing
insurance plans to bill customers once for health care premiums and abortion coverage.
● Former Rep. Ted Budd’s (R-NC) Stopping Traffickers and Their Accomplices Act, which would require
abortion providers to report suspected human trafficking to the National Human Trafficking Hotline.
● Rep. Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) H. Con Res 3, which condemns left-wing attacks on pro-life facilities and
groups and calls on the Biden administration to utilize law enforcement to ensure their safety.

Stopping Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is one of the most pernicious, destructive, and cynical ideas ever foisted the
American people by Democrats on. Rooted in Marxist thought, CRT is opposed to the uniquely American
ideals of liberty and equal protection under the law. Active discrimination is CRT's solution to achieve
so-called “equity.” To be clear, these ideas go against everything that has made America the brightest
beacon of freedom the world has ever known.

Sadly, CRT has spread across American society and made its ways into our schools, government agencies,
and even our military.[284] The RSC Budget opposes this racist and divisive ideology wherever it exists and
supports proposals, such as the following, to eliminate it:
● Rep. Andy Ogles’ (R-TN) Go Woke, Go Broke Act, which would eliminate the Advisory Committee on
Racial Equity at the Department of Treasury, which will be used to force businesses to make hiring
and investment decisions based on radical CRT ideology.
● Rep. Burgess Owens’ (R-UT) legislation to prohibit federal agencies from refusing to follow President
Trump’s executive order prohibiting agencies from teaching, advocating, acting upon, or promoting
CRT in agency trainings.
● Rep. Burgess Owens’ (R-UT) resolution to express the sense of the House of Representatives that
CRT should not be taught in K-12 classrooms.
● Rep. Dan Bishop’s (R-NC) Combatting Racist Training in the Military Act, which would prohibit the
Armed Forces and Military Academies from promoting CRT.
● Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) Combatting Racist Teaching (CRT) in Schools Act, which would prohibit
federal funds from going to any elementary, secondary school, or institution of higher education that
promotes racist ideology like CRT.
● Rep. Dan Bishop’s (R-NC) Stop CRT Act, which prohibits any federal funding being awarded to
entities that advance CRT.

60
 ● Rep. Mark Green’s (R-TN) H.R. 3046, which would prohibit the federal service academies from
providing training and education based on CRT.
● Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s (R-MO) No CRT for our Military Kids Act, which would prohibit the teaching of
CRT in any school operated by the Department of Defense.
● Rep. Julia Letlow’s (R-LA) Parents Bill of Rights, which, among other things, would require school
districts to publicly post curriculum, including all books and reading material available in the library,
so that parents can better stand up against CRT and other harmful topics being taught to their
children.

Protect the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment ensures the protection of our God-given constitutional rights from would-be
tyrants. Tragically, the Second Amendment is under siege from the Biden Administration. The RSC Budget
opposes the Biden Administration’s crusade to infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms, including recent
actions such as the ATF’s billion-record gun registry that would cover 100% of firearm transactions,
criminalizing millions of law-abiding gun owners overnight by making it a felony to own certain firearms with
pistol braces, and the so-called “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” which will do nothing to reduce gun
violence.

The RSC Budget would implement Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) No REGISTRY Rights Act. This bill would
prevent the ATF from using records to create a federal firearms registry. Specifically, it would mandate the
ATF destroy all firearm transaction records on file. The bill would also require Federal Firearm Licensees
(FFLs) to destroy all transaction records if they go out of business. The RSC Budget also supports Rep.
Andrew Clyde’s (R-GA) SHORT Act, which would prevent implementation of Biden’s pistol brace rule.
Further, The RSC Budget supports defunding the constitutionally-dubious red flag provisions in the
so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Additionally, today all 50 states and Washington, D.C. issue permits for some form of concealed carry. In a
major win for the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen correctly ruled that arbitrary,
anti-gun “may-issue” permit standards, which empowered state governments to acknowledge or not
acknowledge one’s Second Amendment rights are unconstitutional. Citizens in these states will no longer
have to face an arbitrary decision from a state- level bureaucrat to exercise their Second Amendment right.
Constitutional carry is also sweeping the country—from two states in 2009 to a majority of the states today.
Currently 26 States have Constitutional Carry laws on the books.[285]

The RSC Budget calls for enactment of Rep. Richard Hudson’s (R-NC) Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,
which allows gun owners to defend themselves across state lines while preserving state legislatures’ role in
enacting permitting policies appropriate to their state. The RSC Budget would also implement Rep. Jeff
Duncan’s (R-SC) Hearing Protection Act to stop considering silencers as firearms and effectively remove
silencers from regulation under the National Firearms Act, as well as Rep. Bob Good’s SHUSH Act, which
would deregulate suppressors at the federal level and preempt state laws that regulate, tax, or prohibit the
possession of suppressors.

61
Defense of Religious Freedoms
In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama referred to some Americans he disagreed with as clinging to “guns
or religion.” This comment sparked wide criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, including
then-candidate Hillary Clinton. Just fifteen years later, the intolerance shown toward religious Americans by
federal and state governments, the media, and the Left has been baffling. As of March 16, 2023, there have
been 39 violent attacks on churches, 64 violent attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers, and 24 other violent
incidents since the leak of the Dobbs decision by criminals looking to intimidate Americans who wish to
stand for the sanctity of human life.[286] The silence by leading Democrats, including President Biden, is
deafening in the face of these disgusting acts of violence. The lack of urgency from the Department of justice
– who has only charge two individuals in this string of attacks is another disturbing example of Democrat’s
two-faced justice system.[287] The RSC Budget supports policies that protect Americans’ right to live
according to their beliefs without discrimination, persecution, or retaliation from federal or state government.
This is particularly true for our churches, non-profits, and faith-based organizations. Moreover, it is critical
that such organizations are not discriminated against in federal grantmaking procedures.

Accordingly, the RSC Budget adopts Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-PA) Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, a bill that
would ensure faith-based institutions and individuals can continue to provide child welfare services and
without government discrimination based on their beliefs. It also supports former Rep. Ted Budd’s (R-NC)
Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Organizations Act, which would reverse the Obama-era policy that required
faith-based providers of social services to disclose their religious affiliation and refer potential clients to
other providers and specify that faith-based organizations must be on equal footing with secular
organization when applying for federal funding. The RSC Budget also supports Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-LA)
Free Speech Fairness Act, which would ensure that churches and church officials can exercise their first
amendment rights without facing the threat of federal taxation. The RSC Budget also supports Rep. Mike
Johnson’s (R-LA) History and Tradition Protection Act of 2021, which would protect religious expression by
eliminating attorneys' fees in civil cases that seek to remove public monuments and buildings including
religious language.

Opposing Federal Efforts to Redefine Gender and Protecting Conscience Rights

The RSC Budget opposes federal efforts to redefine sex and gender. Instead, the federal government should
protect women, girls, and children, and secure conscience rights. We condemn the efforts of President Biden
and Congressional Democrats to undermine these values and recognize the error of Bostock v. Clayton,
which inappropriately expanded the definition of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act. This budget would adopt the
following legislation to push back on this attack from the Left:
● Rep. Greg Steube’s (R-FL) Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would ensure that
women and girls have a fair playing field in competitive sports by prohibiting the use of Title IX funds
to support programs in which biological male athletes are allowed to participate against biological
female athletes. In the 117th Congress, the RSC Steering Committee took an official position in
support of this bill. Also, Chairman Jim Banks led a discharge petition to attempt to force a vote on
the House floor on this important piece of legislation.
● Rep. Mary Miller’s (R-IL) Safety and Opportunity for Girls Act, which would protect spaces for women
and girls in schools. It would prevent the Biden Administration from forcing schools to allow
biological males in bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams with females.

62
 ● Rep. Debbie Lesko’s (R-AZ) Women’s Bill of Rights, which would express the need to preserve legal
protections afforded to women by reaffirming that under federal law: (1) sex refers to the biological
sex of an individual at birth; (2) woman refers to a biological female; and (3) man refers to a biological
male.
● Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) Protecting our Kids from Harmful Research Act, which would prohibit
federal funding of sex-reassignment research on minors.
● Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s (R-CA) Protecting Children from Experimentation Act, which would create a
new criminal offense for performing gender reassignment treatment on minors along with a
corresponding civil right of action for victims.
● Rep. Doug LaMalfa’s (R-CA) End Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act, which prohibits
federal funding of gender reassignment surgeries and treatments.
● Rep. Jack Bergman’s (R-MI) bill, to prohibit the VA from providing or funding gender transition
surgeries.
● Rep. Jim Banks’ (R-IN) Protecting Minors from Medical Malpractice, which would allow people who
had gender-transition procedures as a minor to sue the medical practitioner who performed the life
altering procedure.
● Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-GA) Protect Children’s Innocence Act, which would make it a
criminal offense to perform life altering gender-transition procedures on a minor.

Secure America’s Borders and Protect the Homeland

The RSC Budget recognizes that U.S. immigration policy should be designed to primarily serve the interest
of American citizens, families, and workers. We embrace these principles:
● Immigration policy should protect our national security by protecting the American people from
terrorism, cartels, and other threats to their safety.
● Immigration policy should prioritize American workers, help grow our middle class, raise wages, and
enhance economic opportunity for all lawful residents.
● Immigration policy should respect the rule of law, along with immigrants that honor our legal
immigration processes, rather than incentivize law breaking.
● Immigration policy should aim to assimilate legal immigrants into the American family so they too
can take pride in our values, history, and heritage.

Far from anyone’s ideal, President Biden, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and Congressional Democrats
have embraced the opposite: an illegal open-borders agenda that has created the worst border crisis in U.S.
history. In doing so they have compromised the sovereignty of our nation and blatantly ignored the executive
branch’s duty to maintain operational control of the southern border. Examples include the Biden
Administration’s moves to terminate existing border wall construction contracts, reinstate Obama-era “catch
and release” policies, reverse Trump-era interior enforcement policies, cease the Trump Administration’s
Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), and reverse its Title 42 order. Democrats’ open-border policies have
made every State a border State. The Biden Administration has even been caught flying illegal immigrants
encountered at the border to unsuspecting communities across the country in the dead of night.[288]
Communities across the country are dealing with the devastating effects of an open border, such as
increased drug trafficking, rampant human trafficking, and the skyrocketing costs of absorbing illegal
migrants. Fentanyl overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans aged 18-45.[289]

63
In response to the ongoing calamity at the border, on March 17, 2023, the Republican Study Committee
Steering adopted an official position calling for a border security legislation that would require the Biden
Administration to enforce the law, restore operation control of the border, reform the broken asylum process,
end incentives for illegal immigration, improve border infrastructure, build the wall, and combat cartels.[290]
The RSC Steering Committee also unequivocally endorsed the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas. The
RSC Budget is supportive of H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, which passed the House of Representatives
on May 1, 2023 and included many of the policies adopted by the RSC Steering Committee.[291]

Given the recent ending of Title 42, which will increase illegal crossings by as many as 7 million over the
next two years,[292] Congress must quickly enact additional policies to confront the escalating border crisis. In
the past several years, RSC members have introduced many pieces of legislation to fix our immigration
system and address the crisis at the southern border. The following examples of these bills are supported by
the RSC Budget.

The RSC Budget supports Rep. Clay Higgins’ (R-LA) bill, the Finish the Wall Act and Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN)
Build the Wall Now Act, which, among other things, would complete wall construction projects proposed by
President Trump. The RSC Budget supports Rep. Matthew Rosendale’s (R-MT) REMAIN in Mexico Act to
require the Biden Administration to continue implementation of President Trump’s Migrant Protection
Protocols. This budget would also implement Rep. Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) bill, the Closing Asylum Loopholes
Act, which would increase the “credible fear” standard to reduce fraud in the asylum process and preserve
the program for those truly in need. Additionally, the RSC Budget supports hiring more immigration judge
teams to handle backlogs and make it easier to secure our borders and ports of entry. The RSC Budget
would implement RSC Chairman Kevin Hern’s Withholding Illegal Revenue Entering Drug Markets (WIRED)
Act, which would impose a 5% fee on remittances out of the United States, to finance these necessary
investments in border security. These remittances are often the result of activities such as drug and human
smuggling. Similarly, the RSC Budget applauds Rep. Nathaniel Moran’s (R-TX) Border Security Investment
Act, which would impose remittances on payments made to the top five nations of origin for illegal
immigration in the United States.

The RSC Budget would prohibit federal funds from going to cities or jurisdictions operating as sanctuaries
for illegal immigrants. There are at least 190 of these so-called sanctuary jurisdictions across the country.[293]
Accordingly, the RSC Budget supports the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which would block federal grants
from flowing to these jurisdictions. The RSC Budget also supports legislation that would allow victims of
illegal alien crime to sue sanctuary jurisdictions for damages. The RSC Budget supports Rep. Randy
Feenstra’s (R-IA) bill, Sarah’s Law, to ensure that federal authorities can detain, until ICE can process them,
any illegal alien that commits a crime that results in the death of another person.

This budget also supports the following common-sense measures to support border security and protect the
American homeland:
● Rep. August Pfluger’s (R-TX) legislation to prohibit non-citizens from voting in D.C. elections.

64
 ● Former Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s (R-MO) bill, Eradicate Crossing of Illegal Tunnels (EXIT), which would
expedite the approval process that U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agents must undergo to
destroy tunnels at the border used for illegal crossings and the transportation of narcotics.
● Rep. Dan Meuser’s (R-PA) Immigration Transparency and Transit Notification Act, which would
require the HHS Secretary to notify Federal, state, and local health officials of any jurisdiction before
placing an illegal immigrant there.
● Rep. Tom McClintock’s (R-CA) Illegal Immigrant Payoff Prohibition Act, which prohibits settlement
payments to illegal aliens in connection with their inadmissibility.
● Rep. Dan Bishop’s (R-NC) Immigration Detainer Enforcement Act, which would give explicit authority
to local law enforcement agencies to hold detained illegal immigrants for 48 hours to allow DHS to
assume custody.
● Rep. Lance Gooden’s (R-TX) No Tax Dollars for the United Nation’s Immigration Invasion Act, which
would prohibit federal funding for UN agencies that encourage illegal immigration.
● Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) 287(g) Program Protection Act, which would strengthen law
enforcement partnerships between federal officials and state and local officers in enforcing
immigration law and combatting related crimes.

The RSC Budget also supports ending the diversity lottery visa program and limiting chain migration to the
spouses and children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The RSC Budget would also support
the intent of the 14th Amendment by only conferring citizenship, at birth, to someone born of at least one
U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States.

It is also essential that the federal government prohibit people from overstaying their visas by rigorously
enforcing visa limits. The RSC Budget encourages attempts to add bonding requirements to certain visas
with high overstay rates to mitigate the issue of visa overstays.

Prioritizing American Workers

The RSC budget would also disallow business deductions for wages paid to illegal immigrants. Additionally,
the RSC budget would require employers to use the E-Verify system, produced by DHS, before they employ
someone to ensure that their prospective employee is legally allowed to work in the U.S.

The RSC Budget would implement commonsense reforms to end corrupt practices in the H-1B Visa
program. The RSC Budget would adopt RSC Chairman Jim Banks’ (R-IN) legislation, the American Tech
Workforce Act. This bill would make important wage reforms and replace the current lottery system used in
the program, which outsourcing firms abuse by flooding the system with applications to make it more likely
they receive H-1B slots.

For over 100 years, the “public charge” doctrine has served as a cornerstone of U.S. immigration law that sits
at the nexus of welfare reform and immigration policy. According to this deeply embedded principle, the U.S.
should deny admission and permanent residence to an individual likely, at any time, to depend upon the
government for subsistence. The welfare reforms of 1996 embraced this principle by limiting welfare
benefits to citizens and certain categories of legal immigrants after having been in the U.S. for five years. The
RSC Budget would build off these reforms to ensure welfare funds are available for U.S. citizens, legal

65
immigrants once they achieve citizenship, and refugees for their first two years in the United States. The RSC
Budget also rejects President Biden’s abandonment of the Trump Administration’s common-sense “public
charge” rule – a rejection that defies logic in the face of the worst border crisis in American history.[294] This
budget supports Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) Preserving Safety Net Integrity Act, which would codify the Trump
Administration’s public charge rule. The budget similarly supports Rep. Troy Nehls’ (R-TX) Congressional
Review Act resolution, which would disapprove of Biden’s efforts to undo the Trump Administration’s public
charge rule. These reforms are especially important given FAIR’s 2023 cost study which estimates that the
annual cost of illegal immigration to taxpayers is $150.7 billion.[295]

The RSC Budget also supports amending welfare funding formulas to exclude illegal alien populations
when calculating grants given to states. It would ensure all benefit applicants are checked through the
federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system before being able to take advantage of
a federally funded job training program. Additionally, the RSC Budget supports Rep. Glenn Grothman’s
(R-WI) Preventing Illegal Immigrants from Abusing Tax Welfare Act, which would prohibit illegal aliens from
receiving a Social Security number under the Obama-Biden executive amnesty program.

66
67
To reduce costs, improve quality, and foster transparency and innovation, the RSC Budget supports reforms
that would make America’s health care programs more market-oriented, locally and community focused, and
patient-driven. By tying federal health care aid to need, measured by services required and income, we can
decouple program spending from the causes of spiraling inflation. The current price spiral comes from an
aging population and top-down control from federal bureaucrats. A streamlined approach that empowers
patients and communities will reduce costs while increasing access and improving the quality of care for all
Americans.

Creating Personalized and Affordable Health Care

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, has not fulfilled its
promise to guarantee plan retainment, affordability, quality of care or availability of doctors. Indeed, its result
has been quite the contrary. It dramatically expanded the administrative state, inserted government
bureaucrats between all Americans and their doctors, and destroyed competition in the marketplace. It has
spurred consolidation in the healthcare industry, narrowed provider networks, and increased out-of-pocket
costs to levels that are unaffordable for many families.

To mask this problem, President Biden and Democrats are hiding the true cost of healthcare by providing
tens of billions billion in annual taxpayer subsidies through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).[296] [297] These
subsidies are no solution. In fact, they provide taxpayer dollars to those well above the poverty line
(including those making as much as $159,000 per year)[298] and drive up premiums in the exchanges.[299]
Further, the Biden Administration has illegally implemented illegal executive actions to provide an additional
$34 billion in taxpayer bailouts for the failed Obamacare experiment.[300] These expanded subsidies will only
perpetuate a never-ending cycle of rising premiums and federal bailouts-- with taxpayers forced to foot the
bill. Additionally, these subsidies would force millions of Americans off quality employer coverage into
substandard Obamacare plans. The CBO found that making the IRA bailouts permanent would reduce
employer coverage by 2.3 million, while the Biden Administration’s executive actions would also reduce
access to employer coverage for millions of Americans. [301] [302] The RSC Budget would end these
taxpayer-funded bailouts while adopting reforms that reduce premiums and increase access to care for all
Americans.

Among the reforms proposed in the RSC Budget, protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions is a top
priority. The reforms contained in this budget would produce guaranteed coverage pools, more efficient and
competitive markets, more tailored and portable health insurance policies, and would refocus aid to those
that need it most. The reforms would work to ensure access to high-quality care for these Americans.

Obamacare has more than doubled insurance premiums in the individual market.[303] Major insurers have fled
the Obamacare market, leaving many Americans over the years with the Hobson’s choice to “shop” for
insurance in a market with only one option available. At times, insurers completely fled a market leaving
whole communities without a single marketplace plan available.[304] In fact, 28 percent of counties in the U.S.
have two insurance carriers or less, and some have just one carrier from which to “choose.”[305]

Obamacare has also dramatically escalated the unsustainable rise in American health care spending, which
now consumes about a fifth of the US economy.[306] In large part, this is because it expanded an already

68
overburdened and ineffective Medicaid system, bringing public health care spending to 49 percent of total
health care spending in the United States in 2021.[307] Obamacare also banned new and expanded
physician-owned hospitals from participating in Medicare or Medicaid. This has added to the physician
shortage, exacerbated health care cost, inflation, and reduced access to care.[308] At the same time,
Obamacare’s ban on physician-owned hospitals has contributed to increasing consolidation in the hospital
sector. According to one study, the 25 metropolitan areas with the highest levels of hospital consolidations
charged prices between 11 and 54 percent higher than other metropolitan areas.[309] RSC Budget would
reduce the underlying cost of care by eliminating this ban.

The RSC Budget also opposes any attempts to hand more control over health care decisions that rightly
belong to patients and doctors to federal bureaucrats. Democrats’ preferred option, taxpayer-funded
“Medicare-for-All,” would constitute an unprecedented expansion of the federal government. It would also
cost Americans an estimated $32 trillion in new taxes to artificially control premium increases and would
inevitably lead to long wait times and a reduced quality of care.[310] In other words, the federal government
would be the nation’s sole health insurer with thousands of faceless, unaccountable Washington
bureaucrats playing gatekeeper between patients and the health care services they need. The real and
deadly consequences of single-payer health care are playing out in real-time in the United Kingdom, where
400,000 people have waited more than a year for medical care, those suffering a heart attack are forced to
wait 90 minutes for an ambulance and as many as 500 people per week are dying from health care delays
and shortages.[311] Moving to this system would be both unaffordable and cruel.

The RSC Budget adopts regulatory reforms developed by the RSC’s Health Care Task Force, chaired by
then-Representative and current Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) in the 116th Congress, and set forth in its
report: A Framework for Personalized, Affordable Care. The reforms contained in A Framework for
Personalized, Affordable Care would transform the individual marketplace’s current regulatory structure,
unwind the ACA’s Washington-centric approach, and largely return regulatory authority to the individual
states.[312] The full suite of reforms offered by the RSC’s plan are premised on the idea that protecting people
with pre-existing conditions is more than just guaranteeing an insurance plan. The reforms adopted by the
RSC Budget would provide protections to people with pre-existing conditions and focus on access to
affordability and quality of care.

Reducing Obamacare’s Regulatory Mandates

Under the RSC plan, protections pertaining to guaranteed issues and the prohibition on coverage exclusions
would be retailored to reward continuous coverage and promote portability in the individual marketplace.
Additionally, to provide Americans with options that fit their individualized needs, each state would again be
allowed to determine the minimum attributes and cost-sharing parameters of plans to best meet the needs
of their own citizens. In no case, however, would carriers be able to rescind, increase rates, or refuse to renew
one’s health insurance simply because a person developed a condition after enrollment.[313]

Additionally, states—and not the federal government—would be empowered under the RSC plan to
establish restraints on the extent to which carriers could incorporate the health risks of individuals into
premiums. Individuals with high-risk medical conditions would have affordable access to state-run
Guaranteed Coverage Pools under which their health care costs would be subsidized with federal grants and

69
further contained by any state-enacted premium-setting restrictions. Under this model, states would be free
to implement models like Maine, which implemented an invisible risk pool system that reduced premiums by
$7,000 for those above 60 and reduced premiums by as much as 70%.[314]Providing all states the freedom to
adopt these smart reforms would significantly increase access to private health insurance, reduce costs and
reduce federal spending. In addition, the RSC Budget would fully repeal Obamacare’s destructive tax
increases.

A number of states have used Section 1332 waivers in a way reflective of this approach. Under Section
1332, States can receive federal subsidies that originally would have gone to insurers through the ACA
marketplace and, using state-matching funds, to implement innovative models free of top-down Obamacare
mandates. States can only receive these waivers if they show that their plan will ensure access to
high-quality care for all citizens (regardless of health-status) and reduce premiums. The use of 1332 waivers
has been immensely successful. States with 1332 waivers saw premium reductions of 7.48% from
2018-2019.[315] Premiums in non-waiver states increased by 3.1%.[316] The RSC plan would empower all
states to implement these innovative models to lower costs and ensure guaranteed access to affordable
coverage for all Americans regardless of health status.

Although Congressional Republicans failed to enact comprehensive individual marketplace reforms, they
worked with President Trump to institute a number of flexibilities into the system. These include the repeal
of the individual mandate, repeal of Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), ending unconstitutional
Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments, expanding 1332 waivers (as mentioned above), increasing the
availability of short-term limited-duration plans, and expanding access to health reimbursement
arrangements (HRAs), among others.[317] Nearly all of these reforms are or will be under attack by the Biden
Administration. The RSC Budget opposes all efforts to undermine these critical reforms.

Reducing Regulations
Interstate Health Insurance Plans - In order to increase choice among insurance plans and increase access
to more affordable options, the RSC Budget would ensure consumers are able to purchase health insurance
across state lines. This would drive down costs by encouraging plans to compete to provide access to
high-quality care.

McCarron-Ferguson Repeal - The RSC Budget support Rep. Paul Gosar’s (R-AZ) Competitive Health
Insurance Reform Act, which reforms the McCarran-Ferguson Act to restore the application of federal
antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to provide for competition and protect consumers.

Expand Health Savings Accounts - The RSC Budget would drastically expand access to Health Savings
Accounts (HSA) by eliminating the requirement that health savings accounts be tied to a high-deductible
plan, increasing maximum contributions, and expanding the scope of eligible health care expenditures. This
would allow individuals greater flexibility over their health spending and a greater capacity to handle their
health needs. The RSC applauds Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) efforts to expand access to health savings accounts
through the Healthcare Freedom Act.[318]

70
Legalize Association Health Plans – The RSC Budget would codify President Trump’s Association Health
Plans rule, which was designed to allow small businesses to pool together to leverage lower cost health
insurance on behalf of their employees. By allowing multiple small businesses to band together to form a
larger insurance pool, Association Health Plans make health insurance more affordable and accessible.
Expanding access to Association Health Plans would reduce premiums by as much as $4,100 in the small
group market and $10,800 in the individual market.[319] Unfortunately, President Trump’s rule has been mired
in legal proceedings and the Biden Administration has already taken steps to rescind it.

Oppose Inflation Reduction Act Price Controls - Rather than enact reforms to lower costs through
increased competition in the pharmaceutical industry, President Biden and Congressional Democrats have
embraced socialist price controls that will limit access to life-saving drugs for those who desperately need
them. Several companies have already abandoned research into new cures for drugs treating diseases such
as blood cancer and Stargardt disease.[320] According to the University of Chicago, the price-control
provisions included in the Inflation Reduction Act would reduce medical research and development spending
by as much as 60 percent and result in 342 fewer life-saving medical treatments.[321] The RSC Budget would
ensure continued access to these life-saving treatments by removing these price controls.

340B Reform - The RSC Budget supports reforms to ensure that drug discounts under the 340B program go
where intended. This budget would support efforts to ensure that these benefits ultimately are used to
reduce drug prices for the intended at-risk patients and are not used for other purposes.

This budget would also reduce federal regulations that stifle or prevent private investment in rural
broadband in areas that could benefit from telehealth operations. In addition, this budget would implement
regular congressional reviews of regulations on health care providers and insurers with the aim of repealing
outdated and onerous regulations on a regular basis.

Embracing Technology to Reduce Health Care Prices – Technological innovation has the potential to
dramatically reduce the cost of health care. Access to medicine via telehealth can increase access to primary
care and limit emergency room visits. New technology, including wearable health care tech, can reduce the
need for doctor visits by providing patients and their primary care physicians with more real-time data and
instant communications. For these reasons, the RSC Budget supports Rep. David Schweikert’s (R-AZ)
Advanced Safe Testing at Residence Telehealth Act. This bill would establish pilot programs to allow federal
health program to provide patients with technology approved by the FDA, including “…remote patient
monitoring, wearables, diagnostics, tests, software as medical device (SaMD) and more from the comfort of
their own home.”[322] In addition, the RSC Budget supports RSC Chairman Kevin Hern’s (R-OK) Access to
Prescription Digital Therapeutics Act, which would allow Medicare to cover FDA approved phone
applications that treat diseases such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Modernizing the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance

We must modernize the tax treatment of health insurance to mitigate the inflationary pressure created by
the exclusion for employer sponsored insurance (ESI) premiums. The ESI exclusion is the primary reason why
the U.S. has developed its unique health care system, in which the government has artificially made it
cheaper for employers and employees to lock people in their present jobs and have employers handle health

71
care negotiations for individuals, instead of increasing wages and giving people increased freedom. This has
prevented the organic development of a competitive, transparent, and accessible health care market. Instead,
this tax preference has effectively turned each individual employer into its own balkanized health care
market.

Moreover, where an individual is employed dramatically alters their access to health insurance. For example,
in 2022, only 39 percent of very small businesses offered health insurance benefits, whereas 91% of the
largest firms did.[323] The sectioning of health insurance products into millions of separate markets has
turned the health insurance industry into the most monopolistic, least competitive, and least innovative in
the U.S. economy. It has significantly reduced wages by shifting compensation dollars away from wage and
salary increases.[324]

ESI also reduces labor flexibility by paying people to stay with their present job and not enabling them to
switch to a more productive one. It increases costs because individuals, who do not pay most of their health
care costs directly, are encouraged to enroll in needlessly expensive health insurance policies.[325]
The ESI exclusion drives hyperinflation and inefficiency of the health care industry. Over the last 20 years
(pre-COVID-19 pandemic), the average change in prices for non-health care goods and services grew at an
average annual rate of 2.4 percent, while the costs of medical care grew at an annualized rate of 3.4
percent.[326] It affects the private insurance market and contributes to the exponential spending growth of
Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs.

Though one method of reform would be to repeal the exclusion entirely and use the increased revenues to
reduce tax rates across the board, this would cause immediate upheaval to the health insurance system that
the exclusion has distorted for almost 80 years. Instead, the RSC Budget would reform the tax treatment of
private health insurance in a revenue-neutral manner by providing a capped exclusion for all spending on
health insurance by and on behalf of the tax filer, as well as for related dependents. This would include
employer health insurance plans, as is the case now, as well as any such spending from an individual,
charity, or family member. This would equalize the tax treatment of all health insurance products and allow
the organic development of efficient health insurance products without forcing a change to the existing
health insurance market that most Americans rely on. This would also allow any number of employers to
freely work together to create insurance pools. This universal exclusion would also have a high per capita
cap to ensure revenue neutrality.

To increase flexibility for small business owners and their employees, the RSC budget supports codifying the
Trump Administration’s rule that creates individual coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements
(ICHRAs). ICHRAs reduce the administrative burden on employers by allowing them to make tax-preferred
contributions to a health reimbursement account for their employees. This relieves employers from the
complexity of designing their own health insurance plan and the financial burden of hiring a broker. Under
ICHRAs, employees can use the contribution to cover the cost of premiums for a more diverse option of
health insurance plans, giving the employee more flexibility and choice. Providing employees with the ability
to pick health care unaffiliated with their employer, makes health care more portable for a highly mobile
labor market.
Streamlining Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program

72
As a quasi-voluntary, state-federal partnership, Medicaid traditionally subsidized health care services for the
most vulnerable Americans, including individuals with disabilities, low-income children, low-income seniors,
and pregnant women. Medicaid is the largest federal means-tested welfare program and accounts for the
majority of federal means-tested spending. Federal funding for Medicaid has grown substantially, from $14
billion in 1980, to $118 billion in 2000, to $458 billion in 2020, to a projected $897 billion in 2033.[327]
Despite spending that continues to climb at an unsustainable rate, Medicaid continues to fail beneficiaries.
Research has shown patients covered by Medicaid are, in some cases, more likely than the uninsured to have
poor health outcomes, such as an increased instance of death after a major surgery.[328] A landmark
randomized controlled trial in Oregon compared similar populations of low-income, able-bodied Medicaid
enrollees with non-enrollees. The study found, “Medicaid increased health care utilization, reduced financial
strain and reduced depression, but produced no statistically significant effects on physical health or labor
market outcomes.”[329] Further, Medicaid will often provide funding to abortion providers, violating the right
to life while failing to provide quality health care for beneficiaries. RSC’s budget would ensure that none of
these funds go to entities that provide abortions.

Even if the care provided by Medicaid was not substandard, its growing costs are unsustainable. This
problem was exacerbated by Obamacare, which drastically increased the scope of Medicaid from a program
intended to serve individuals with disabilities, low-income children, low-income seniors and pregnant
women to a program that can cover all adults below a certain income threshold.

To make matters worse, Obamacare provides an inflated contribution for these new Medicaid expansion
populations, incentivizing states to pull funding from other needs of the core populations under Medicaid.
Not only does this reduce spending for vulnerable populations—the poor, aged, disabled, and children—but
the enhanced federal share for healthy, able-bodied adults forces taxpayers to subsidize those who would
likely be able to purchase private insurance. As noted by Chris Pope of the Manhattan Institute,
“…economists Jonathan Gruber and Kosali Simon estimated that 60% of those newly covered previously had
private insurance. This crowd-out rate increases the higher up the income distribution that eligibility for
Medicaid is expanded.”[330]

Additionally, the normal federal contribution formula still has two major drawbacks. First, it incentives states
to tax their own Medicaid providers to leverage more federal funds to give back to those providers, a practice
known as “provider taxes” that unnecessarily increase federal spending without improving patient
outcomes.[331] This practice has been rightfully referred to as a “scam” by President Biden.[332] Secondly, it
forces states to funnel their health care funds into a singular federal program, stunting innovation that would
occur if states were allowed to use funds they raised in whatever fashion they want. President Biden’s
American Rescue Plan Act also included an additional incentive to encourage states to expand their Medicaid
programs in the form of a two-year, five percent boost to the federal match rate.

Separately, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a state-federal partnership program
established to provide aid to children in families who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but who
still may not be able to afford private insurance.

73
States have a proven track record of innovation and, when granted flexibility with sufficient guardrails, can
develop new solutions to improve patient care and meet their citizens’ health care needs while ensuring
taxpayer funds are used wisely.

For these reasons, the RSC Budget proposes to create five new block grants by repurposing funding for
these programs and the Obamacare exchange subsidies. First, Medicaid funding for children and CHIP
funding would be combined into a block grant that states can use to help families acquire health insurance.
The grant would have no income floor so states could use it to provide for the needs of all low-income
children. Medicaid funding for the elderly, people with disabilities, and pregnant women would be allocated
into three more separate block grants for states to provide services for those populations in a flexible
manner. A fifth grant would be available to states to support programs that ensure guaranteed insurance
coverage, which would include funding for the guaranteed coverage pools mentioned earlier. Then, the state
could choose whether to transfer additional funds from this grant to the other four grants or use these funds
to provide subsidies to ABAWDs to acquire health insurance. These individuals would only be able to receive
these benefits if they earn over a certain threshold. Additionally, these benefits would be capped as a
percentage of earned income and would phase-out past a separate earned income threshold. ABAWDs
would be subject to sensible work requirements, which the CBO has estimated would reduce federal
spending on the program by $135 billion.[333] Additionally, funds could not be used to provide coverage to
individuals who have not provided evidence of their eligibility, including proof of their legal immigration
status. The growth factor for each of these grants would be tied to population changes of the covered
population groups in each state, allowing federal support to change with the size of the covered population
and states to plan more efficiently.

Separating these funding streams would allow Congress to make sure federal taxpayers are going to
provide for the health care needs of the populations Medicaid was traditionally intended to cover. It also
improves the ability to ensure that able-bodied, working-age beneficiaries are engaged in work or job
training, similar to the successful TANF reforms established in the 1990s, without denying benefits to
recipients that cannot enter the labor force.

The funding for these block grants would take into account savings from effectively eliminating provider
taxes, which CBO has estimated would reduce federal deficits by $526 billion by eliminating unnecessary
spending,[334] and rebalancing the federal share of these support programs down from the average 64.6
percent to a 50/50 split with the states.[335] While the current federal-state split encourages states to expand
spending on optional services for individuals who could afford private coverage,[336] moving to a 50/50 split
will ensure that states focus Medicaid spending on mandatory benefits for vulnerable populations as the
program was originally designed.

These reforms collectively would save more than $4.2 trillion over 10 years while protecting Medicaid’s
vulnerable populations and achieving better results for low-income Americans.

74
75
Medicare’s Current Path to 11 Percent Cuts
Nearly every American worker pays into Medicare for their entire working lives. It is paramount to
conservatives that our government honors the commitment made to these Americans.

Medicare currently covers more than 65 million Americans[337] and is projected to spend $1.033.6 trillion
(excluding offsetting receipts) in FY 2024.[338] With more Americans retiring every day, enrollment in the
program is projected to grow by 24 percent to 76.9 million in 2030.[339] By FY 2031, the program will spend
$1.81 trillion a year.[340]

According to the latest estimates from the Medicare Trustees, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is
expected to be depleted in 2031,[341] at which point payments to providers to be cut by more than 11
percent.[342] Payment cuts will result in rationed care for current and future beneficiaries. The Medicare
guarantee would no longer exist.

Biden’s Failed Approach

Rather than exercising prudent leadership, President Biden has engaged in reckless demagoguery while
using the Medicare program as a piggy bank to reward special interests. Unfortunately, this is not surprising
given Biden’s history of supporting legislation that pulled funding from Medicare. As Vice-President, Biden
supported the passage of Obamacare,[343] which raided $716 billion from Medicare to pay for the failed
Affordable Care Act.[344] This included $415 billion in reduced payments to doctors and hospitals.[345]
Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) used nearly $300 billion [346] generated largely from Medicare
price controls to pay for its woke agenda.[347] [348] The IRA’s price controls have already eliminated
investments in life-saving drugs—including for blood cancer—[349] and reduced the total number of
life-saving drugs available by 342.[350]

President Biden’s budget continues this reckless course by robbing Americans of access to life-saving drugs
through $200 billion in additional price controls. The Biden Budget also lays the cost for his irresponsible
policies at the feet of American small businesses through a reckless $650 billion tax hike that will kill jobs
and reduce wages.[351] It is shameful—but not surprising—that Biden is forcing small businesses and their
hard-working employees to pay for his lack of leadership. Thankfully, there is a better way to protect and
strengthen Medicare for current and future retirees.

Reforms to Save and Strengthen Medicare

The Biden administration has been lying to the American people. The RSC Budget does not cut benefits
or raise premiums for Medicare beneficiaries. We make plans compete for their seniors’ hard-earned
money and find other savings that have nothing to do with premiums or benefits. This is a win for seniors
who will have lower premiums and the same high-quality coverage under the RSC Budget. That’s a fact.
- RSC Chairman Kevin Hern

The RSC Budget rejects the approach taken by the Biden Administration that uses Medicare to fund liberal
special interests, imposes price controls that will cost lives, and raises taxes on American small businesses.
Instead, the RSC Budget presents a pathway to achieve savings, extend the solvency of the HI trust fund,
and prevent a 11 percent across-the-board cut to benefits for all seniors. This common-sense pathway is

76
achievable without resorting to President Biden’s combination of destructive tax increases and rationing of
care. Further, RSC policies would result in savings— not cuts—for seniors through lower premiums, reduced
costs, and greater choice. Again, despite the false claims from the Biden administration, the RSC Budget
does not cut benefits or raise premiums for Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, it lowers premiums for these
seniors.

Preventing 11 Percent Cuts to Medicare Payments

The RSC Budget is committed to protecting current retirees from the across-the-board 11 percent cut to
benefits and subsequent rationing that would result from the bankruptcy of the Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund. To achieve this, the RSC budget would implement a premium support model where private plans
would compete with a federal Medicare plan (the “Fed Plan”) that would offer the traditional Medicare
benefits received through Part A, B, and D. Under this plan, Medicare’s trust funds would be merged into a
singular fund that would be responsible for paying premium support subsidies to cover the vast majority of
their premium costs. This framework would ensure seniors, whether they choose a private plan or the Fed
Plan, receive more affordable, high-quality coverage. The size of premium subsidies would be benchmarked
to the cost of the Fed Plan, and Medicare would retain all of the current tools at its disposal to reduce costs
and provide high-quality coverage. CBO has found that a more limited version of this model would reduce
seniors’ premiums overall by 7 percent. [352] The reforms contained in the RSC’s Budget should exceed that
projection. Overall, seniors would pay lower Medicare premiums and lower taxes under the RSC’s Budget
than President Biden’s budget.

The RSC Budget would also eliminate duplicative and market-distorting subsidies in Medicare plans that
increase costs.[353] It would also reform the flawed system of graduate medical education (GME) payments to
incentivize hospitals to compete for funding by prioritizing residencies in priority specialties and addressing
healthcare professional shortages.

The RSC Budget would also implement site-neutral payment policies throughout the Medicare program to
lower costs and reduce consolidation in the hospital sector, modify payments to hospitals for
uncompensated care and eliminate Medicare’s financial coverage of bad hospital debt, which has failed to
lower costs for patients.[354] [355]

77
78
79
Though the U.S. population has increased by 87 percent since 1960, the number of DI beneficiaries has
increased by a staggering 1,743.87 percent.[356] [357] Similarly, in the last generation, the labor force
participation rate has plummeted to just 62.5 percent.[358] Put simply, there are fewer tax-paying workers
supporting a growing non-working population. Not only is this a recipe for economic stagnation, but it robs
individuals of the happiness and fulfillment that comes from the dignity of work. Further, small businesses
remain desperate to find workers to fill job openings, with BLS recording 10.8 million job openings in
January 2023.[359] Allowing Americans who can work to languish in government dependency is both
unsustainable and immoral. It is necessary for policymakers to help connect those who can work but are
receiving government assistance with available jobs.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Civilian labor force participation rate, accessed April 18, 2023
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART.

Encourage Work
The DI program’s current design traps far too many in the program by making them unable to earn a living
even if they get healthier and want to return to work. Surveys of DI beneficiaries have shown that 45 percent
of those receiving benefits are interested in working.[360] However, only 3.7 percent of beneficiaries leave the
rolls each year because they begin earning wages from work.[361] Beneficiaries face a “cash cliff” where they
will be removed from the rolls if they earn above a set amount, creating a powerful incentive for beneficiaries

80
to stay unemployed. To remove this cliff and help more Americans experience the dignity of work, the RSC
Budget would implement the flat benefit included in the Making DI Work for All Americans Act, introduced
last by former Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL). A flat benefit would save more than $226 billion over 10 years and
increases benefits for lower-income workers by ending the practice of basing benefits on previous income
levels.[362]

The RSC Budget would also adopt the Making DI Work for All Americans Act’s provision that would limit
retroactive payments to six months. The retroactive benefit limitation would right-size these benefits to the
length of time that someone must wait before being able to draw regular benefits and would save nearly
$19 billion over 10 years.[363]

Finally, the RSC Budget would update the official list of available jobs in the economy. As noted by The
Heritage Foundation:
Eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits is based on whether the applicant is
capable of performing any jobs that exist in the national economy. But that list was last updated in
1991 and fails to recognize significant work opportunities that exist for individuals with disabilities.
While telegram messenger, mule driver, and seal killer (a practice outlawed in 1972) are all listed as
potential jobs for workers applying for SSDI, Internet-based and gig-economy jobs are not included
on the official jobs list.[364]

Requiring updates to this list would reduce federal spending by $7.3 billion over 10 years.[365]

Emphasize Work in Recent Years

In general, applicants for DI must have worked in five of the last ten years to become eligible for benefits.
That means someone who has not worked in the last five years could be eligible for DI benefits. The RSC
Budget would require applicants to have worked four of the past six years. This reform should be paired with
others that make it easier for disabled Americans to stay in the workforce, such as those outlined above. This
would save more than $57.2 billion over 10 years.[366]

Needs-based Period of Benefits and Return to Work

When the Social Security Administration (SSA) is planning its Continuing Disability Reviews (CDR), it
identifies those beneficiaries who are expected to medically recover, such as those who have conditions that
could be overcome with medical and rehabilitative treatment. [367] About 5 percent of beneficiaries are listed
as “medical improvement expected” and 60 percent are listed as “medical improvement possible.”[368]
However, once a person with such a condition has been awarded DI benefits, they have less of an incentive
to seek possible treatments and recovery options. As a result, fewer individuals can recover their full
mobility and work capacity, a result that traps individuals instead of empowering them to earn a living.

To encourage individuals to seek the most effective treatments, SSA should be able to award DI benefits for
a limited, need-based period to the population of applicants where medical recovery is anticipated. The
period of the award could be varied by the likelihood of recovery. At the end of the initial award period, the
beneficiary could reapply for benefits under an expedited reinstatement process if the beneficiary feels they
are still unable to conduct gainful employment. This proposal is based on the Social Security Disability

81
Insurance Return to Work Act, sponsored by Rep. French Hill (R-AR), and would save $4.8 billion over 10
years.[369]

Additionally, The RSC Budget supports requiring continuing disability reviews every two years for DI
recipients where medical improvement is expected, which would save the program more than $12.06 billion
over 10 years and ensure that the program serves those that need it most.[370]

Update Eligibility Rules

Unfortunately, the criteria to determine eligibility has not been amended to reflect advances in medicine,
technology and the labor market, leading GAO to designate federal disability programs, including the DI
program, as “high risk.”[371] Many of the medical criteria have not been updated since the 1980’s. Crowding
out DI payments for those who need them by sending benefits to those who can and should work is an
unjust and immoral use of taxpayer dollars.

Many DI beneficiaries are now awarded benefits based on the “Medical-Vocational Grid” rather than meeting
a specific condition on the “Listing of Impairments.”[372] The grid uses various factors (including age,
education, skill levels and English language proficiency) to determine if a person is disabled instead of
focusing on whether a person can perform work in the modern or local economy. The RSC Budget supports
updating eligibility standards to reflect the advances in science and medicine and that those standards be
updated and more uniformly applied. This would save more than $135 billion over 10 years.[373]

Fight Fraud
Between FY 2015 and FY 2019, the SSA estimates it paid out $7.6 billion in DI overpayments.[374] This level
of improper payments is an outrageous cost to the taxpayer and, once again, crowds out resources for those
who rely on the program. It is imperative the SSA do a better job of preventing fraud and abuse of DI.

Current law prohibits the consideration of medical evidence from unlicensed individuals or doctors convicted
of fraud when a determination about a disability claim is made. The RSC Budget supports amplifying this
commonsense policy by prohibiting any individual who has been convicted of a felony from providing
evidence for the determination of a disability claim.

Conduct Anti-Fraud Reviews

This budget would require the SSA to amend its award letter to clearly specify DI benefits are contingent
upon continued medical impairment.[375] This reform would provide clarity to beneficiaries that the award
would be dependent upon a CDR indicating the individual is still disabled. According to the SSA, these
reviews are one of the most cost-effective tools for improving program integrity. Every dollar spent on
reviews between 1996 and 2011 generated $10 in future program savings.[376]

This budget also supports better implementation of technology across the entire SSA. For instance, CDR
mailers should be replaced with online questionnaires. SSA should also take advantage of advances in
analytical data analysis to better target its selection of specific cases to review. [377] [378]

82
Prohibit Double Dipping
In 2010, 117,000 individuals received more than $850 million in payments from both the DI program and UI
benefits.[379] The SSA estimated that for each month in 2015, an average of about 30,000 disabled-worker
beneficiaries would receive both DI and UI benefits.[380]

These two programs are meant to serve mutually exclusive populations: DI is for individuals who are unable
to work and UI is for individuals who can work but are temporarily unemployed. The RSC Budget would
prevent people from double dipping in both programs at the same time. This reform has been proposed by
Rep. Jodey Arrington’s (R-TX) bill, the Double Dip Elimination Act.[381] Implementing this policy would save
$5.5 billion over 10 years.[382]

Protect Beneficiaries from Liberal Trial Lawyers

The RSC Budget acknowledges that the way DI attorneys are paid must be reformed. Presently, it creates
perverse incentives to game the system at the expense of recipients.[383] Unlike other legal cases, the clients
in DI cases do not directly pay their attorneys. Instead, the SSA will withhold the attorney’s fees (including
travel fees) from the successful claimant’s award and transmit the fees to the lawyer.[384] After a claimant
wins an appeal, SSA awards the individual the benefits back-dated to when the individual originally would
have been awarded them and pays out a lump sum. If the beneficiary had attorney representation, SSA
deducts 25 percent of that amount (up to the maximum allowable fee) for the attorney’s fee. The longer an
appeal takes, the larger the back-dated award will be for a successful claimant. Because the attorney gets
paid as a percentage of the lump sum award up to a maximum dollar amount, he has a direct financial
incentive to ensure the award is as close to the maximum fee as possible. This “pay-for-delay” scenario is in
direct conflict with the interests of the claimant. The RSC Budget would fix this problem by ending direct
payments to DI attorneys, which would save taxpayers more than $9.3 billion over 10 years and create
incentives for attorneys to provide better representation at a reduced cost.[385]

Additionally, the RSC Budget supports closing the case record to new evidence after a reasonable period of
time to prevent attorneys with bad intentions from drawing out a pending disability claim.

Appeals Process Reforms

Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) hear appeals from DI applicants who have their initial application and
reconsideration for benefits denied. While it is important to quickly resolve the pending cases, it is equally
important to decide them correctly and fairly. However, it appears once an appeal reaches an ALJ, a claim is
far more likely to be awarded than the facts of the case would justify.

As provided by the Making DI Work for Americans Act, the SSA should be required to conduct periodic
reviews of ALJ decisions to ensure the integrity of the process. This should include comprehensive reviews of
ALJs whose decision records make them a statistical outlier. Congress should also consider cutting the
deadline to file an appeal down to one month instead of two, instituting a cooling off period that would
prohibit people from reapplying within 12 months of a denial and adopting formal rules for hearing
procedure, as exist in other court settings.[386] These reforms would save $3.3 billion over 10 years.[387]

83
Medicare and Retirement Eligibility
Under current law, DI beneficiaries under age 65 are automatically enrolled in Medicare after 24 months of
receiving benefits. The RSC Budget proposes increasing the waiting period for Medicare eligibility to 60
months after receipt of DI benefits for those under age 65. This proposal is based on Rep. David Schweikert’s
(R-AZ) Preserving and Reforming SSDI (PAR-SSDI) Act.

The RSC budget also proposes separating retirement and disability benefit eligibility. Though Social Security
disability benefits were intended to help only non-retirees that cannot work because of a disability, a
loophole currently exists where seniors can receive both disability and early retirement benefits, starting at
age 62. The RSC Budget eliminates this loophole and therefore eliminates the incentive that currently exists
for individuals to game the application process by applying for DI at the same time they apply for early
retirement benefits. This reform would save taxpayers more than $20.8 billion over 10 years.[388]

Utilize and Encourage Private Disability Insurance

Private disability insurance offers better benefits, is less expensive, and is better at returning beneficiaries to
work.[389] Unfortunately, only about 42 percent of private sector workers have access to short-term plans and
only 34 percent of private workers have access to long-term plans.[390] [391]

Steps should be taken to allow more workers to access private disability coverage and promote better
integration of private insurance with the government-run DI system.[392] Employers and employees could be
provided preferential tax treatment when they pay for private disability insurance. Allowing for private
disability insurance would save taxpayers more than $14.8 billion over 10 years.[393]

Another option could be to allow states to opt-out of federal DI and for them to produce state run programs,
or even fully private systems that could reduce tax burdens, cut costs, and find innovative ways to fulfill the
role of the SSDI program.

84
85
“We cannot be clearer: we WILL NOT adjust or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near
retirement.”

– RSC Chairman Kevin Hern

In a Matter of Years, President Biden’s Plan Would Slash Social Security Benefits
More than 56 million retirees, survivors, and their families collect benefits from the Social Security Old Age
and Survivor Trust Fund (OASI). The OASI trust fund is projected to reach the point of insolvency in the next
ten years. According to the Social Security Trustees’ most recent report, without action, the OASI Trust Fund
will reach insolvency in 2033, triggering 23 percent across-the-board benefit cuts for seniors currently
relying on the program.[394] These devastating cuts would leave many seniors unable to make ends meet and
rob them of their ability to live with dignity and independence. Millions of American families who provide
support to loved ones would experience economic hardship as well. The RSC Budget recognizes this is
unacceptable.

If you step away from the Democrats’ political rhetoric on the Social Security retirement program, the
problem is simple. Retirement benefits as they are currently structured cost more than the revenue streams
that pay for it. Ignoring this fact, as the Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats have, will lead to
the largest across-the-board cuts to current Social Security retirement beneficiaries in history. [395] Again,
President Biden’s plan would cut benefits by 23 percent in 2033. This is unacceptable and immoral.

President Biden not only accepts these impending cuts to Social Security, but he doubles down on his failed
policies that robbed the OASI trust fund in the first place. Inflation, created by the reckless spending policies
of President Biden and Congressional Democrats, has done vast damage to the trust fund’s solvency.[396] [397]
As noted in the most recent CBO Budget and Economic outlook, the faster-than-anticipated depletion of the
OASI trust fund “…stems primarily from the 8.7 percent … [inflation adjustment] received by Social Security
beneficiaries in January 2023, the largest since 1981.”[398] Put simply, the reckless spending policies of
President Biden and Congressional Democrats will lead to, and accelerate the timing of, significant benefit
cuts for seniors.

Biden Needs to Stop the Games and Come to the Table

President Biden is a career politician who has served in and around public office since his first election to the
Senate in 1972 at the age of 29. Now, at age 80 with 51 years in government, President Biden is using scare
tactics to falsely claim Republicans will slash benefits for current retirees. Unfortunately, Biden’s reckless
rhetoric is a departure from earlier in his career when he seemed to take the solvency of Social Security more
seriously. In fact, Joe Biden supported the reforms that led to Social Security’s current structure. When
President Biden served as a Senator in 1983, “…he was directly involved with one bipartisan compromise
that became law and kept Social Security solvent for decades.” [399] He, other Democrats, and Republicans
came together in a bipartisan fashion to address Social Security’s solvency issues at that time.[400] Biden
voted to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67, tax Social Security benefits for the first time, and delay
cost-of-living adjustments to preserve the solvency of the OASI trust fund.[401]

The RSC Budget calls on the President to stop lying, stop the political gamesmanship, and start seriously
engaging with Republicans on sensible reforms to save the program.

86
Social Security Reform’s History of Bipartisanship
For decades, lawmakers and experts have acted in a bipartisan fashion to propose and enact various reforms
to extend the solvency of the Social Security retirement program. As noted above, President Biden voted for
the 1983 Social Security Amendments, which represented a “major milestone in the legislative history of the
Social Security program according to the Social Security Administration. They might fairly be described as
the last major Social Security legislation of the twentieth century.” The 1983 Amendments were based on
recommendations produced by the bipartisan National Commission on Social Security Reform, also known as
the Greenspan Commission.[402] Among other things, the Biden-approved 1983 amendments delayed the
retirement age, reduced cost of living adjustments, and increased Social Security rates.[403] Nearly 30 years
later, a majority of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (a.k.a., the
Bowles-Simpson Commission), led by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former
Republican Senator Alan Simpson, proposed increasing the retirement age, reducing high-earners’ benefits,
and increasing benefits for low-income beneficiaries. This year, the Washington Post’s Editorial Board
endorsed certain Social Security retirement reforms, such as “gradually indexing up the age, currently 67, at
which people may retire at full benefits, to take account of longer retirements due to rising life expectancy;
and … tweaking benefit formulas to trim how much high-income households get…” The Post described these
and other reforms as a “sensible way to reduce the Social Security gap.”

While the reforms contained in these proposals has varied, it is noteworthy that had Congress adopted some
of these policies in the past, the OASI trust fund would not be approaching bankruptcy and the possibility of
23 percent across the board cuts for retirees.

The Coming Debate Over How to Prevent Insolvency

In the coming years, Congress and the President will be forced to address the insolvency of Social Security to
avoid bankruptcy and historic cuts for seniors. While there are many possibilities, broadly speaking, there are
three general policy options that will be debated to preserve the Social Security program:
1. Funding transfers from the general fund.
2. Tax increases.
3. Program savings.

General Fund Transfers

One approach that will be discussed is a debt-financed general fund transfer. Authorizing a general fund
transfer without reform would do nothing to make the Social Security retirement program more sustainable.
This approach would effectively lock in enormous deficit spending that would expose taxpayers to more
than $200 trillion of debt (not accounting for interest) from FY 2024 until FY 2096.[404] Alternatively, it would
pave the way for massive income tax increases to try to pay for this general fund spending. More
fundamentally, this option would solidify the inability of Congress to address America’s fiscal insanity.
America is over $30 trillion in debt, with 46 percent of the increased deficits since 2000 driven by spending
on Social Security and Medicare.[405] Finally, a debt-financed general fund transfer compounds the economic
threat China poses as the second largest foreign holder of the U.S. debt. In 2024 alone, the U.S. will send
over $60 million in debt interest payments every day to China, who will then use those funds to build their
military and economy. If Social Security approaching bankruptcy does not motivate Washington to make the

87
program sustainable, and instead Congress doubles down on the problem with more deficit spending and
taxes, Congress will have forever abdicated its responsibility to restore fiscal sanity.

Tax Hikes
The other option—often proposed by those on the left—is to raise payroll taxes that flow to the OASI trust
fund. For example, Democrats have proposed raising the cap on the level of income subject to payroll taxes,
which is currently set at $160,200.[406] Applying the payroll tax to all earnings would eliminate 1.3 million
jobs, reduce capital investment by 1.3%, and shrink the economy by 1.2% over 10 years.[407] Increasing the
payroll tax rate to account for this would only increase the severity of job losses and economic pain for
working-class Americans.

President Biden and Democrats in Congress continue to mislead the American people into thinking that “tax
hikes on the rich” can solve the problem. For example, President Biden has repeatedly promised that he will
not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 and that his radical left-wing agenda can be
exclusively funded by higher taxes on individuals above that threshold. At his most recent State of the Union
address, the President said, “Let me be crystal clear. I said at the very beginning: Under my plans, as long as
I’m President, nobody earning less than $400,000 will pay an additional penny in taxes. Nobody. Not one
penny.”[408] Applying the payroll tax to income over $400,000 would raise approximately $686 billion in
revenue over the next 10 years.[409] At best, this would only extend the OASI trust fund for a couple of years,
which may be why the proposal was not included in President Biden’s FY 2024 budget.[410] On the other
hand, this tax increase would eliminate 226,000 jobs, reduce capital investment by 0.2 percent and shrink
the economy by 0.2 percent.[411]

Program Savings
Without enacting a massive increase in taxes that will imperil the economy or a multi-trillion-dollar general
fund transfer that worsens our fiscal situation, Congress and the President will have to work in bipartisan
fashion to consider options that create savings for Social Security. The unfortunate truth is that OASI trust
fund expenditures as they are currently structured are unsustainable.

The RSC Budget is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security for those that need it most
and staving off 23 percent across-the-board cuts for current retirees. The RSC Budget & Spending Task
Force cannot be more clear: we will not now or ever support cutting or delaying retirement benefits for any
senior in or near retirement. With insolvency approaching in the 10-year budget window, Congress has a
moral and practical obligation to address the problems with Social Security. These common-sense,
incremental reforms will simply buy Congress time to come together and negotiate policies that can secure
Social Security solvency for decades to come.

Every Social Security retirement reform supported by the RSC Budget was previously offered in a bipartisan
fashion. For instance, the RSC Budget would make modest changes to the primary insurance amount (PIA)
benefit formula for individuals who are not near retirement and earn more than the wealthiest PIA benefit
factor. It would also make modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for
increases in life expectancy. Finally, for these individuals, it would limit and phase out auxiliary benefits for
high income earners.[412] Again, the RSC Budget does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or

88
near retirement. Additionally, the RSC Budget would promote trust fund solvency by increasing payroll tax
revenues through pro-growth tax reform,[413] pro-growth energy policy that lifts wages,[414] work
requirements that move Americans from welfare to work,[415] and regulatory reforms that increase economic
growth.[416]

89
90
91
This section contains reforms to the federal budgeting process that would help address our nation’s federal
debt crisis.

Republican Rule Changes for the 118th Congress

The RSC Budget commends the positive changes to House Rules made by the new Republican majority,
most notably:
● Replacing the flawed Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) with Cut-As-You-Go (CUTGO), which prohibits
consideration of any legislation increasing mandatory spending without an equal or greater cut in
mandatory spending over the same time period.
● Eliminate the past House Rules’ version of the “Gephardt Rule,” which provides for the automatic
suspension of the debt limit through passage of a budget resolution.
● Require a 3/5 supermajority to raise federal tax rates.
● Require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to account for
macroeconomic effects when reviewing major legislation.
● Restoring the Holman Rule, which allows for defunding specific accounts or individual federal
employee salaries.
● Require the CBO to review the inflationary impacts for legislation that increases mandatory spending
in any fiscal year by .25 percent of projected GDP or greater. This is similar to a proposal made by
former RSC Chairman Jim Banks.
● Creating a new point of order against unauthorized appropriations larger than the most recently
enacted level in appropriations bills.

Cut Spending
Constitutional Requirement for a Balanced Budget - Forty-nine states have adopted balanced budget
requirements.[417] The widespread adherence to balanced budget requirements among the states
demonstrates how crucial fiscal responsibility is for prosperity.

The RSC Budget supports the adoption of a federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA), and other
long-term fiscal controls, to limit tax collection and balance the budget. Former House Judiciary Committee
Chairman and RSC member Bob Goodlatte’s BBA presents a thoughtful approach to achieving this goal.[418]
This proposal would bar annual spending in excess of 20 percent of GDP and prevent Congress from relying
on tax increases to balance the budget, which is key to preserving a dynamic and innovative economy. This
budget applauds similar efforts from RSC members Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Rep. Mark Green (R-TN),
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX), and Rep. Lauren
Boebert (R-CO).

There are also mechanisms that are like a BBA but seek to account for market cycles by tying spending caps
to a percentage of potential GDP. Former Ways & Means Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Senator
Mike Braun’s (R-IN) MAP Act and the Swiss debt brake utilize this approach. [419]

Reversing the Baseline Bias - Under current law, CBO’s baseline spending projections automatically assume
higher spending each year. This budget recommends the inflation-adjusted, pro-spending bias for
discretionary spending be removed from the baseline by adopting zero-baseline budgeting. Further, the

92
rules governing the CBO require it to assume that expiring programs continue in the baseline. Similarly, CBO
is required to assume entitlement programs continue to provide benefit payments at current levels even if
the trust fund is depleted. These assumptions should be removed so that the baseline shows the real
current-law trajectory.

Trust Funds Reforms – The federal government has a pernicious habit of borrowing from trust funds to
finance other government spending programs.[420] The RSC Budget would support congressional rules
prohibiting the financial resources of these trust funds from being used for non-trust fund programs.

Additionally, trust funds are often required to “invest” all or most of their assets into federal debt. Of course,
the debtor and creditor are both the federal government, which results in a robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul
situation. The RSC Budget would require that federal reports on the status of each of these trust funds
include an analysis of the lost investment growth caused by this practice.

Finally, bailouts of these trust funds would be viewed as new spending by the RSC Budget. Also, the RSC
Budget would require CBO and JCT scores to show any negative impact from a bill on a federal trust fund
and incorporate how that would change the long-term unfunded liabilities that taxpayers may be expected
to eventually bail out.

Long Term Spending and Revenue Controls - The RSC Budget supports implementing a joint revenue and
spending growth cap to limit how much of the nation’s resources the federal government can consume and
to avoid future fiscal disaster. Such a reform would cap all revenues as a percentage of nominal GDP, and in
the event of a breach of this cap, Treasury would be required to refund a percentage cut that equals the
over-collected revenues. This refund would go to any person or entity that paid federal taxes and would be
related to the total amount of taxes they paid. In this way the mechanism could not be used to force wealth
redistribution.

The RSC Budget applauds states that implemented similar common-sense controls on spending such as the
Conservative Texas Budget.[421]

Reauthorization Vote Triggered When CBO Estimate is Inaccurate - The RSC Budget would statutorily
require a vote to reauthorize a mandatory spending program when actual spending exceeds expectations by
a certain percentage. When a program costs more to implement than CBO modeling suggested, the
authorization of such a program should be reconsidered with the new information. This rule would exclude
entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, because those are programs supported by specific trust
funds.

Earmarks - Earmarks have been abused to divert taxpayer resources to special interests, grease the wheels
of Washington’s spending machine and set a poor example of fiscal responsibility.[422]

In the past, earmarks have flowed to the districts of the most powerful and connected members of
Congress. “In the 111th Congress, when the names of members who requested earmarks were included in
the appropriations bills, 61 percent of the earmarks and 51 percent of the money went to members of the

93
House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In other words, 81 appropriators (50 in the House and 31 in
the Senate), who constituted 15 percent of the entire Congress, purloined more than half of the earmarks.
As the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ.) said about members of Congress who wanted to bring back earmarks
in 2014, ‘The problem with all their arguments is the more powerful you are, the more likely you get the
earmark in. Therefore, it is a corrupt system.’…Since 1991, according to Citizens Against Government
Waste’s Congressional Pig Book, there have been 116,816 earmarks costing taxpayers $411.4 billion.”[423]

In the 117th Congress, RSC’s Steering Committee took an official position opposing congressional earmarks
and supported now-Senator Ted Budd’s (R-NC) letter, which outlined opposition to the return of
earmarks.[424] RSC also issued a memorandum on restoring congressional Article I Authority while opposing
earmarks.[425]

Reclaim Article I
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution entrusts the power of the federal purse to Congress. Unfortunately,
under current practice, the legislative branch often abdicates its responsibility to agencies staffed with liberal
bureaucrats. The RSC Budget includes the following reforms to restore Article I authority:

Limit the Executive Branch from Making Spending Decisions - Too often, and with disastrous results,
Congress has allowed the executive branch to spend money collected from fees and other revenue streams
virtually unchecked. The RSC Budget supports Rep. Gary Palmer’s (R-AL) Agency Accountability Act, which
would require explicit congressional authority before offsetting collections could be spent. Further, the RSC
Budget calls for all reprogramming and transfer actions to reported to Congress, made available publicly in
advance, and subject to a congressional disapproval framework.

Rescind Excess Budget Authority - The RSC Budget strongly supports the use of the Impoundment Control
Act to rescind excess budget authority, particularly the massive amounts of pandemic-spurred spending,
most of which had nothing to do with protecting the public health.

Additionally, under the CBO’s scoring conventions, an appropriations bill can offset increases in discretionary
spending if it also rescinds previously appropriated but unobligated funds. In many cases, funds rescinded in
appropriations bills were not planned to be spent and the rescission has no effect on actual spending. The
appropriators have abused this CBO scoring rule to spend more while falsely appearing deficit neutral on
paper.[426] Leaving these unused funds alone will only perpetuate this budgetary gimmick.

Unauthorized Spending - Since 1835, the Rules of the House have required that appropriations go to only
authorized purposes. This rule is rarely enforced because appropriations bills are routinely considered under
legislative procedures that waive existing budget rules. CBO estimates that in FY 2022, the federal
government appropriated $461 billion on unauthorized programs. CBO also found 1,118 expired
authorizations prior to the start of FY22, along with an additional 111 authorizations which expired
throughout the fiscal year.[427] The RSC Budget applauds the new point of order against unauthorized
spending and supports Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers’s (R-WA) Unauthorized
Spending Accountability Act, which would address these “zombie appropriations” by sunsetting them and
creating a commission to review all discretionary programs.

94
Ensure Reconciliation Prevents Tax Increases - The reconciliation process has been used by Democrats to
increase taxes and spending – most recently the disastrous Inflation Reduction Act. The RSC Budget
supports preventing the use of this process to pass legislation that would increase net spending or tax
burdens. The RSC Budget also supports providing an automatic process for congressional consideration of a
reconciliation package that would carry out a budget resolution’s spending cuts.

Set Appropriated Limits on Non-Entitlement Mandatory Spending Programs - Mandatory spending

programs operate on budgetary autopilot and do not allow Congress to deliberate and decide if the funds
should be spent each year. The RSC Budget would ensure all mandatory, non-retirement programs are
treated in similar fashion to appropriated entitlements and subject to annual appropriations.

Move to a Calendar-Year Budget Cycle - The fiscal year should be re-aligned with the calendar year to
modernize the process and to synchronize federal budgeting with common economic measurement practices.

Establishing a Regulatory Appropriations Process - Congress should limit regulatory actions in a manner
like the appropriations process. Congressional authorizing committees could be granted the ability to
produce annual legislation limiting the economic impact of all regulatory actions undertaken by agencies
under their jurisdiction. These could also include specific limitations or requirements related to certain
regulatory actions, related to such actions from a particular office, or in relation to enforcing a specific bill.

Follow the Budget

This section of the RSC Budget supports the following reforms to strengthen budget enforcement and make
it more difficult to deviate from the Congressional Budget Resolution:

Give Budget Resolutions the Force of Law - For Congress to live within its means, the budget process must
be taken seriously. Congressional budget resolutions should be signed into law by the President after being
passed by both chambers of Congress and carry the weight of law. Currently, budget resolutions lack the
enforceability necessary to hold Congress accountable to agreed upon spending limits.

Set Long-Term Deficit Limits – Current congressional fiscal constraints generally focus on the ten-year
budget window. This narrow view gives lawmakers and the public an inaccurate picture of the nation’s
long-term fiscal health and encourages budget gimmicks that would balloon spending beyond the ten-year
budget window. H. Con. Res. 71, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2018, established a point
of order in the House against legislation that would increase direct spending (or deficits in the Senate) by
more than $2.5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods following the end of the period covered
by the budget resolution. The RSC Budget would codify this point of order.

Budget Waiver Transparency and Disapproval - The House will often waive the application of the rules and
statutes meant to stop lawmakers from violating their own budget. Often these special rules are a blanket
waiver of all points of order against the consideration of a bill or amendment. The RSC Budget would amend
House rules to require that any rule providing consideration of a bill specifically identify all individual budget
waivers. Additionally, any Member should be able to make a motion to strike any such waiver included in a

95
rule.

Emergency Designation Reforms - The RSC Budget would provide greater accountability for the use of
“emergency spending.” It would require legislation containing emergency spending to be accompanied by a
statement explaining why an emergency designation is necessary and require a three-fifths majority vote to
approve such legislation. Moreover, emergency funding should be timely and targeted. Thus, the RSC
Budget would create a separate point of order against emergency spending legislation that would produce
outlays beyond two fiscal years.

Transparency
Account for Debt Service Costs - This budget would adopt Rep. Michael Cloud’s (R-TX) bill, the Cost
Estimates Improvement Act, to require the CBO to include the projected debt service costs in its legislative
cost estimates.

Annual Statement of Federal Finances – The RSC Budget supports Budget Committee Chairman Jodey
Arrington’s (R-TX) Taxpayer Receipt Act, which would require the federal government to send each taxpayer
an annual statement demonstrating how the taxpayer’s money was spent in the last year. The RSC Budget
would add estimates of the debt level, and the size of spending, revenues, and debt per family to these
statements.

Disclose the Real Costs of Federal Credit Programs – The RSC Budget supports using fair-value accounting
for federal insurance programs to accurately assess their cost.

Reports on the Cost of Legislation Passed by Congress - The CBO is required to report to the
Congressional Budget Committees on legislation reported by committees or adopted by either the House or
by the Congress at least monthly. The RSC Budget supports making public these reports on the costs of
legislation in each chamber.

Require OMB to Report Unobligated and Reprogrammed Balances - The RSC Budget would require OMB
to provide Congress and the public with up-to-date information about unobligated balances. Each month,
OMB should be required to produce a public report that includes a detailed description of unobligated
balances in each account with details including the years from which the balances were originally made
available. This reform would have been particularly helpful in tracking the trillions of dollars in funding
provided by Congress in recent years to supposedly address the pandemic. Members of Congress and the
public have found it particularly difficult to determine just how much money has and has not been spent
from those funds.

Welfare Disclosure in the President’s Budget - In the 113th and 114th Congresses, the House rules required
budget resolutions in the House to provide a 10-year outlook of means-tested welfare spending. The RSC
Budget would extend that rule to presidential budget submissions.

Budgetary Treatment of Highway Programs - The budgetary treatment of the highway program contributes
to overspending and unaccountability. Normal discretionary spending is limited by the budget resolution,

96
while mandatory spending is limited by the House and Senate CUTGO and PAYGO rules and statutory
pay-as-you-go requirements. Under current law, the budget authority for transportation programs is treated
as mandatory spending, while outlays from the Highway Trust Fund are treated as discretionary spending.
This has the effect of exempting transportation programs from any of the standard budget enforcement
procedures.[428] The RSC Budget would fix this problem by accounting for highway spending as discretionary.

Count All Programs in the Budget - Under current law, several major programs, including Social Security,
the Postal Service, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are all considered “off-budget” for purposes of the budget
resolution. In reality, these programs all have significant impacts on the budget and taxpayers would likely
bailout these programs if they exhaust their resources. The RSC Budget supports including these programs
in the budget resolution.

Transparency from the Budget Scorers – The CBO, JCT, and OMB have failed to be transparent in their
methodology and their modeling. The CBO Show Your Work Act, introduced by Rep. Warren Davidson
(R-OH), would implement this important reform. The RSC Budget would also require these entities to
publish the confidence intervals related to their findings.

Transparency for Appropriations Bills - When most legislation is considered in the House, CBO releases a
report to Congress and to the public estimating the fiscal impact of the bill. But this practice is not often
followed during the consideration of appropriations bills.[429] The RSC Budget would require CBO to give this
information, as well as information on changes in mandatory programs contained in appropriations bills, to
each member of Congress and to the public. [430]

CBO Reports for Unreported Measures - House Rule XXI, Clause 8 ensures all points of order in the Budget
Act also apply to legislation not reported by a committee, filling a loophole in the Budget Act. The RSC
Budget supports codifying this rule.

97
98
99
In 2022, total mandatory spending made up 71 percent of the federal budget.[431] Since 2000, other
mandatory spending (which includes mandatory categories outside of Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid) has risen above CBO baseline projections by $724 billion, more than any other category of
spending.[432] This spending is on budgetary autopilot and receives little congressional review and effectively
zero annual oversight. This is in direct conflict with the Constitution’s edict that “No Money shall be drawn
from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The RSC Budget offers sensible and
needed reforms to bring federal spending back to reasonable levels and increase Congressional
accountability.

Agriculture Committee
The proposals here should be viewed in conjunction with other reforms contained in the RSC Budget that
provide immense benefits to stakeholders in the agriculture community. America’s farmers would thrive
under the RSC Budget’s package of pro-growth tax reforms and deregulatory measures. These changes
would create a business environment that fosters productivity for the benefit of all agriculture industry
participants and the American public.

Further, the RSC Budget would preserve the existing agricultural safety net that has been in existence since
1938 and ensure that hard-working independent farmers are protected. [433] The RSC Budget is undeniably
pro-farmer. Unfortunately, the reckless spending of President Biden and Congressional Democrats have put
the integrity of the farm safety net at risk. Without targeted reforms, our nation’s looming debt crisis will
force deep and devastating cuts that would crush local farmers. The RSC Budget is committed to ensuring
that does not happen through targeted reforms that protect farmers from devastating financial losses.

The RSC Budget recognizes that farmers and agricultural producers have suffered from decades of onerous
regulations and taxation while their trade opportunities have been increasingly limited. The agricultural
industry and rural America have become the target of the left’s radical regulatory agenda. This is best
illustrated by the Green New Deal’s calls to destroy farming as we know it and put countless farmers out of
business. The RSC Budget stands against the destruction of the agricultural industry and would strengthen
this sector by effectively adopting President Trump’s agriculture plan in conjunction with this budget’s mass
deregulation and pro-growth tax policies.

Among other important policies that would strengthen the American agricultural industry, the RSC Budget
would repeal the estate tax, index capital gains, extend the pass-through tax deduction of the TCJA, make
bonus depreciation permanent, permanently apply the EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation,
and amortization) definition of income for determining the net interest deduction, and accelerate the current
depreciation schedule for nonresidential construction. The RSC Budget’s tax reforms alone would reduce tax
burdens of the agricultural industry by roughly $275 billion over the next decade. The RSC Budget also
would also advance de-regulatory reforms to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species
Act.

Similarly, President Trump’s budgets proposed targeted reforms to federal agricultural spending as part of
its comprehensive plan to reduce regulatory burdens on the agricultural industry while balancing the

100
budget. The RSC Budget would adopt, with minor adjustments, President Trump’s overall plan to reform
agricultural spending.

Streamline Commodity Subsidy Programs – While well intentioned, policy changes in recent years have
resulted in a bigger percentage of commodity payments being made to wealthier farmers. In 1991, the
percent of commodity payments made to non-family farms and family farms worth more than $500,000 was
27.1 percent.[434] In 2015, that percentage had more than doubled to 62 percent.[435] President Trump’s last
budget proposal noted, “It is hard to justify to taxpayers why the Government should provide assistance to
farmers with incomes over half a million dollars. Doing so undermines the credibility and purpose of farm
programs.” Part of the reason for this increase was the 2014 Farm Bill, which created two new farm support
programs, allowing producers to choose their preferred subsidy:
● Price Loss Coverage (PLC) – This pays farmers when the nationwide price for a commodity falls
below a threshold (even if a particular farmer sells his crop for a higher price); and
● Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) - This pays farmers when revenues fall below their recent levels.
Since these programs are designed to guarantee a certain price of level of revenue, more of the benefits
accrue to wealthier farmers with higher levels of sales and revenues. Eliminating these programs would save
taxpayers more than $51.15 billion over 10 years while ensuring that support payments are directed to
those that need them.[436]

The RSC Budget would also require any action by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to have
congressional approval. The Biden administration has distorted the authority of the CCC to achieve its
climate agenda.[437]

Reform Crop Insurance - The Federal Crop Insurance Program provides subsidized insurance for farmers to
insulate them from losses due to poor crop yields. Farmers pay about 40 percent of premiums for crop
insurance and taxpayers cover the remaining 60 percent. While the insurance policies are offered by private
companies, the federal government reimburses them for administrative costs and reinsures them to
guarantee against losses.

The RSC Budget recognizes the importance of this program and the important role it plays in protecting
family farms. However, in recent years crop insurance payments have accrued disproportionately to
wealthier farmers. According to the American Enterprise Institute, “In 2013, for example, 10 percent of
Federal crop insurance indemnities went to farms with household incomes greater than $1,428,545…50
percent of indemnities went to farms with household incomes greater than $143,806 in 2015.”[438] The RSC
Budget would adopt President Trump’s proposal to modestly reduce the federal share of crop insurance
premiums by 14 percent. As President Trump’s last budget proposal pointed out, “According to the
Government Accountability Office, data show that the impact on a farmer’s average per-acre production
costs would be limited to between one and two percent depending on the crop.” [439] The RSC Budget would
also halt administrative expense reimbursements to crop insurance companies, similar to President Trump’s
proposal to cap payments to crop insurance companies for underwriting gains.[440] These two reforms would
save taxpayers more than $37.8 billion over the next 10 years.[441] Additionally, under the RSC Budget,
federal crop insurance subsidies would only be offered to pay for catastrophic policies. Crop insurance
subsidies were originally intended to ensure farmers could recover from a bad crop year and replant. The

101
program currently pays, in addition to the costs of the catastrophic policies, most, and sometimes all, of the
costs of increasing coverage levels beyond this standard.

The RSC Budget also adopts President Trump’s proposal to cap the overall amount of crop insurance
subsidies a single farmer may receive. President Trump’s budget asserted, “There is no need for any one
producer to receive more than $125,000 in commodity support payments per year ($250,000 for married
couples).”[442] Then-Chairman Grassley similarly noted, “For years, the top 10 percent of farmers have
received over 70 percent of the subsidies from the government. That’s only one of the many reasons it’s so
hard for young and beginning farmers to get started.”[443]

Eliminate the Milk Program - The federal government simultaneously runs programs to pay dairy farmers
when prices decline, buy products from the market to maintain price levels, and limit the importation of dairy
products. These programs use taxpayer dollars, create an unstable dairy industry and increase the price of
milk. As Americans struggle with skyrocketing inflation, the federal government should not continue
programs that increase the price of essential goods. Eliminating federal dairy subsidy programs would save
taxpayers $1.675 billion over the next decade while reducing prices for hard working families.[444]

Phase Out the Sugar Program – Free trade ideally allows producers around the world to compete to
produce the highest quality and most affordable commodities. Sadly, when it comes to sugar, many foreign
governments subsidize their production of sugar to artificially drive down costs and unfairly undercut
American sugar producers. For this reason, the RSC Budget commends efforts led by Rep. Kat Cammack
(R-FL) to highlight the unfair practice of foreign sugar subsidies worldwide. The RSC Budget calls on the
President to seek better trade deals that allow American producers to compete on equal footing.
Unfortunately, the U.S. sugar program consists of price supports, production limits for domestic sugar
producers, and import restrictions and tariffs for imported sugar. These restrictions have achieved their aim
of higher American sugar prices, which are more than 100 percent higher than world prices.[445] While
well-intentioned, the sugar program is forcing Americans to deal with significantly higher food prices during
a period of record inflation. While the RSC Budget supports reforms to the sugar program, it also
acknowledges that many foreign interests are subsidized at the expense of American producers. The RSC
Budget supports adoption of the Sugar Policy Modernization Act, introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC),
as a step in the right direction to reform the sugar program, and reiterates the demand that President Biden
take a harder position in negotiating with foreign countries to eliminate their unfair sugar subsidies.

Additional Agriculture Subsidy Reforms - The RSC Budget also supports the following common-sense
reforms:
● Conservation Reserve Program - The RSC Budget would prohibit new enrollments in the
Conservation Reserve Program, saving taxpayers more than $4.8 billion over ten years according to
the CBO.[446] This mirrors proposals from President Trump to streamline conservation programs.[447]
● Conservation Stewardship Program - The RSC Budget would prohibit new enrollment in the
Conservation Stewardship Program, saving taxpayers more than $3.4 billion over ten years according
to the CBO.[448] This mirrors proposals from President Trump to streamline conservation programs.[449]
● Eliminate the Conservation Technical Assistance Program - The USDA’s Conservation Technical
Assistance Program uses taxpayer dollars to provide subsidies to landowners for conservation

102
 purposes. The RSC Budget would eliminate this program, which liberals hope to use to push their
radical climate agenda.[450]
● Eliminate the Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation Program - The underlying programs
work to replicate the work of private actors to expand their business reach and customer base by
providing taxpayer subsidies to federally hand-picked businesses. Eliminating this program would
save taxpayers $2.54 billion over ten years.[451]
● Repeal Specialty Crop Block Grant Program - This budget would eliminate this program, which
provides extra subsidies to federally hand-picked producers.
● Eliminate the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center - The National Sheep Industry
Improvement Center provides grants to support sheep and goat producers, including financing annual
trips to Australia. This budget would end subsidies for this mature industry that does not require
taxpayer dollars to enhance its production and marketing.
● Enact the Agriculture Civil Rights and Equality (ACRE) Act - Rep. Tom Tiffany’s (R-WI) ACRE Act
would prohibit the Department of Agriculture from intentionally discriminating against any person
based on race, color, national origin, or sex in connection with programs, hiring, contracting,
subcontracting. This budget would also extend this prohibition against overtly racist policies to
Department of Agriculture subcontractors.

Energy and Commerce Committee

Power Marketing Administrations and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Assets - The RSC Budget would
auction off all assets of the four remaining Power Marketing Administrations. It would also auction off
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) assets not related to the nuclear triad. Those TVA assets related to the
nuclear triad would be transferred to the Department of Energy.

Extend authority for Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Spectrum Auctions – The FCC’s authority
to hold spectrum auctions lapsed on March 9 of this year.[452] The RSC Budget would provide access to
wireless spectrum to private sector innovators by extending the FCC’s auction authority.

Corporation for Travel Promotion - The RSC budget would eliminate the Corporation for Travel Promotion,
also known as Brand USA, saving taxpayers $386 million over the next ten years.[453]

Education and Workforce Committee

During the previous Congress, the RSC’s American Worker Task Force released Reclaiming the American
Dream: Proposals to Empower the Workers of Today and Tomorrow. Chaired by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), the
report included more than 100 proposals to empower American workers and modernize education. Many of
its proposals fall within the jurisdiction of the House Education and Workforce Committee and are supported
by the RSC Budget, including the following:

Higher Education Financing

● The RSC Budget would adopt Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) Congressional Review Act resolution which
would permanently end President Biden’s unconstitutional and regressive student loan bailout, which
will cost $420 billion,[454] force working-class Americans to subsidize high-income taxpayers with

103
 college and graduate degrees[455] and increase inflation.[456] The RSC Budget would also permanently
end the Biden Administration’s $230 billion Income Driven Repayment scheme, which represents
another regressive income transfer to wealthy taxpayers, would fuel inflation and drive tuition even
higher.[457] Finally, the RSC Budget would adopt Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) and RSC Chairman Jim Banks’
(R-IN) Federal Student Loan Integrity Act, which would end the delay in student loan repayments
unlawfully implemented by the Biden Administration.[458]
● The RSC Budget would end Public Student Loan Forgiveness for high-income earners by adopting
Rep. Ken Buck’s (R-CO) PSLF Fairness Act. This bill would ensure hard working taxpayers are not
forced to subsidize higher income professionals who are more than capable of paying back loans they
willingly took out.
● The RSC Budget would tie student loan repayment rates to program enrollment rather than the
institution. This would remove incentives to use taxpayer money to acquire an education that is not
likely to result in better earnings. This reform is contained in Education and Workforce Chairwoman
Virginia Foxx’s (R-NC) PROSPER Act.
● The RSC Budget would allow colleges to limit federal loans based on field of study to ensure
taxpayer dollars fund academic pursuits that are unlikely to result in future earnings.
● The RSC Budget urges lawmakers to recalibrate undergraduate borrowing caps to promote
responsible borrowing, discourage tuition hikes, and more accurately reflect the cost of attaining a
four-year college degree. The borrowing cap should also be adjusted to account for the significantly
lower cost of remote instruction.
● The RSC Budget would limit borrowing in the Parent PLUS and Grad PLUS loan programs, which
encourage students and their parents to borrow large amounts of money and have fueled tuition
inflation.[459]
● The RSC Budget urges lawmakers to clarify that Income Sharing Agreements (ISAs) are not student
loans but rather should be entitled to their own legal treatment. This would allow ISAs to flourish
and, among other things, would provide tax treatment clarity for students and ISA providers. The
RSC opposes the recent guidance from the Department of Education that falsely labels ISAs as
loans.[460]
● The RSC Budget would clarify fair lending requirements to allow Cohort Default Rates (CDRs) and
similar metrics to be used in private education lending. Doing so would foster innovation in lending
and reduce reliance on traditional criteria that may disadvantage students from low-income
backgrounds.
● The RSC Budget would create a single income driven repayment (IDR) plan to replace the litany of
current IDR plans. This would make enrollment and repayment simpler and more predictable for
future borrowers. The RSC Budget would end a loophole for higher-income enrollees by eliminating
the standard repayment cap.
● The RSC Budget would limit the overly generous nature of current federal forgiveness programs. It
would cap the total amount of student loans that can be forgiven through the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness Program at $57,000, require payments for 25 years instead of 20 before forgiving debt
and increase the maximum amount for payments from 10 to 15 percent of the income of the debtor.
● The RSC Budget would eliminate the Pell Grant mandatory spending add-on, which has been used
by schools to raise tuition or shift aid elsewhere and would save taxpayers $54.2 billion over the next
decade.[461] The RSC Budget would also ensure that Pell Grants are targeted to those who need them

104
 by limiting eligibility to students from families with income below 250% of the federal poverty line.
These reforms would lower tuition since every dollar increase in the maximum Pell grant increases
tuition costs by 37 cents.[462]
● The RSC Budget would eliminate in-school subsidies for undergraduates. Every taxpayer dollar spent
on these subsidies increases tuition by 58 cents.[463]
● The RSC Budget would require post-secondary institutions to repay a percentage of graduates’ debt
if defaults are too high as a way of ensuring that these schools have “skin in the game.”
● The RSC Budget would eliminate account maintenance fee payments to guarantee agencies who
participated in the now defunct Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program.
● The RSC Budget would implement Rep. Brett Guthrie’s (R-KY) Empowering Students Through
Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, which would require universities and colleges to provide financial
counseling services to federal loan recipients.
● The RSC Budget would require use of Fair Value Accounting for federal student loan budgeting.
● The RSC Budget opposes liberal elite proposals for “free” college, which fundamentally ignores the
root causes of tuition inflation while shifting increasing costs to taxpayers who don’t have a college
degree.[464]

Connecting Educators and Employers

● To ensure that necessary workplace skills are being passed along to students, the RSC Budget would
require school accreditation boards to include business representation, as proposed in Education and
Workforce Chairwoman Virginia Foxx’s (R-NC) PROSPER Act.
● The RSC Budget would allow schools to partner with skills-focused organizations, such as private
businesses, to allow these organizations to teach up to 100 percent of a program.
● To encourage the incorporation of more real-world experience into education, the RSC Budget
supports several PROSPER Act amendments to the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program. These
reforms would remove the cap on how much federal work study funding can go to students
employed by private entities, require all employers to meet the same federal match obligation, and
eliminate the requirement that institutions spend 7 percent of their federal work-study funding on
students that are employed in community service positions. Several of these reforms are contained in
former Rep. Fred Keller’s (R-PA) Federal Work Study Improvement Act.

The RSC Budget also supports Rep. Rick Allen’s (R-GA) Employee Rights Act of 2023. This legislation
would protect the rights of American workers and provide them with maximum workplace flexibility and
choice. Specifically, the bill would prevent intimidation by union officials by reserving the secret ballot in
union elections, prevent union dues from being used to advance left-wing political causes, and protect
independent contractors, gig workers and franchisees from job-killing left-wing schemes designed to enrich
liberal donors.[465]

Financial Services
End the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Reform the Federal
Housing Administration - The U.S. housing finance system supports more than $13.4 trillion in outstanding
single-family residential mortgage debt and over $1.9 trillion in multi-family residential mortgage debt, with
Fannie and Freddie responsible for a large portion of that debt.[466] Taxpayers have already been forced to

105
bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of $187 billion. Since being bailed out, these
government-sponsored entities have continued to loom large in the housing market. As of February 2022,
67.7% - or $8.8 trillion - of the U.S. Single Family Mortgage Market consisted of Agency Mortgage-Backed
Securities (MBS) issued by government sponsored entities.[467]

The RSC Budget recommends repealing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s federal charters and winding down
their outsized role in the housing and securities markets over time. Further, the Federal Housing
Administration should be reformed so it can operate on a self-sufficient basis. This proposal is based on the
Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act introduced by former representative and RSC
Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

Increase and Extend Guarantee Fees - While Congress works to responsibly wind down GSEs, it should
also implement reforms to restore competition with the private sector. The RSC Budget would double the
0.1 percent Guarantee Fee the GSEs are required to charge, matching former President Trump’s request.

End Dodd-Frank Bailout Authority for Big Banks - The Dodd-Frank financial reform law authorized the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to use taxpayer dollars to bail out the creditors of large,
“systemically significant” financial institutions. Taxpayers should not be the emergency piggy bank for poor
decision-making by financial institutions and corporations. The RSC Budget would repeal this authority.
Additionally, the RSC Budget stands against the elimination of limits on FDIC insurance coverage. Raising or
eliminating the current $250,000 cap will divert scarce capital to riskier investments and expose taxpayers
to endless amounts of bailouts.

Audit and Reform the Federal Reserve - Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin
money and to regulate the dollar’s value. To comply with this constitutional standard, the RSC Budget
would remove the Federal Reserve’s mandate relating to employment by enacting Rep. French Hill’s (R-AK)
Price Stability Act of 2022, which would remove its employment mandate while retaining the mandate for
stable prices. The employment related aspects of the Federal Reserve’s so-called Dual Mandate are often
used to justify Keynesian stimulus policies and money printing schemes that kill jobs, stoke inflation, and
increase debt.

Under current law, Congress is prohibited from accessing all the Federal Reserve’s records. The GAO, which
serves as Congress’s non-partisan watchdog, should be allowed to review and inspect the Federal Reserve
just as it does any other agencies. This commonsense proposal is based on Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY)
Federal Reserve Transparency Act.

The RSC Budget also recommends the creation of a Centennial Monetary Commission, such as the one
proposed in former Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady’s (R-TX) Centennial Monetary Commission Act.
This commission would examine how the Federal Reserve’s policies have affected the U.S. economy and
make recommendations to Congress for potential reforms.

106
Finally, the Federal Reserve should be required to adopt a transparent, rules-based monetary strategy. As
described by monetary economist John Taylor, “Sound rules-based monetary policy and good economic
performance go hand in hand.”[468]

Eliminate the SEC Reserve Fund - The Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) so-called “Reserve Fund”
is simply a slush fund created by the Dodd-Frank financial regulations law, allowing regulators to spend
without oversight by Congress. This fund should be eliminated, as was requested by former President
Trump—especially in light of recent efforts by the SEC to start targeting fossil fuel companies.[469] This
would save $503 million over the next 10 years.[470]

Natural Resources
Reduce the Federal Government’s Footprint - The federal government’s physical footprint is staggering.
According to the CRS, “The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, 28 percent of the landmass
of the United States. The federal government owns over 80 percent of the land in Nevada and 45.9 percent,
on average, of the contiguous western states.”[471] This tremendous hold over our country stifles growth and
inflates land prices, a burden that hits working class Americans hardest. This budget would prohibit the net
acquisition of new federal land, unless necessitated by a national emergency.

Produced by the Bureau of Land Management

107
Additionally, the federal government owns more than 272,000 buildings that cost tens of billions to
operate.[472] The government’s estimated replacement value for these assets is $1 trillion.[473] The RSC
Budget supports reforms to make it easier to sell off unneeded space and expand enhanced leasing
authority. The RSC Budget supports Rep. Gary Palmer’s (R-AL) Transparency in Federal Buildings Projects
Act, which would require the GSA to make prospectuses and associated information on federal building
projects available to the public.

Reform the Antiquities Act - The Antiquities Act of 1906 was enacted to give the president authority to
protect archeological sites from looting. Unfortunately, this authority has been abused, most notably by
President Obama.[474] The RSC Budget supports amending the Act to require congressional approval prior to
a designation becoming effective.

Reform Wilderness Study Area Process and Expand Timber Harvesting - While Congress has charged the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with preserving more than 10 million acres of designated Wilderness
Areas, the BLM also oversees 11.1 million acres of Wilderness Study Areas (WSA).[475] WSAs, as the name
implies, were meant to remain under WSA status for a short duration of time to determine whether to
include them as permanent Wilderness Areas. However, most of these lands remain in limbo status for
many years and are regulated as Wilderness Areas. As such, these valuable lands are locked away from the
American people. Moreover, the forest land in WSA status cannot be properly maintained. The lack of proper
forest management on these lands not only restricts access to valuable timber but also allows these areas to
turn into tinder boxes, intensifying the loss of life and property when forest fires occur. The RSC Budget
would implement proposals similar to the Unlocking Public Lands Act and the Protect Public Use of Public
Lands Act introduced by former Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-MT) to quickly review and process WSAs and allow
increased forest management and timber harvesting on federally held and managed lands.

Oversight and Reform

The RSC Budget incorporates many of the critical reforms supported by the RSC’s Government Efficiency,
Accountability, and Reform (GEAR) Task Force of the 116th Congress, chaired by former Rep. Greg Gianforte
(R-MT), who now serves as the Governor of Montana. Rep. Gianforte (R-MT) focused the GEAR Task Force
on assembling proposals designed to reign in the administrative state and promote efficiency in the federal
government. Many of these related to the hiring, removal, and compensation of federal employees.

Reforms to the Removal Process for Federal Employees - It has become virtually impossible to remove
most federal employees. A review by the GAO found that the dismissal process is estimated to take 170 to
370 days.[476] According to the Heritage Foundation, of 2.1 million federal employees, only 11,046 (0.5
percent) were fired in 2017.[477] This system is so absurd that the courts have actually ruled that federal
employees have a property right to continued employment.[478] Even worse, under the Trump Administration,
we witnessed “another level of resistance to the new president that is less visible and potentially more
troublesome to the administration: a growing wave of opposition from the federal workers charged with
implementing any new president’s agenda.”[479]

The biggest losers in this system are hardworking taxpayers who are forced to subsidize the bloated salaries
of unqualified and unelected bureaucrats working to force a liberal agenda on a country that does not want

108
it. The RSC Budget therefore supports several commonsense proposals to improve the removal of federal
employees:
● The MERIT Act, sponsored by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), which would shorten the timeframe
necessary to remove a bad employee to 30 days, limit the retirement compensation awarded to a
federal employee removed for committing a felony in abuse of their official duties, rein in unnecessary
appeals, and grant managers authority to recoup bonuses paid to employees who were later found to
have committed certain workplace violations.
● Congress should require the mandatory removal of federal employees that commit crimes.[480]
● The Anti-Deficiency Reform and Enforcement Act, sponsored by former Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI),
which would expand grounds for removing employees under the Anti-Deficiency Act to include
misusing an official vehicle or aircraft for personal travel.
● Congress should prohibit federal employees from using paid time off for exercising union duties and
end the practice of the federal government serving as the dues collector for the unions. Former Rep.
Jody Hice (R-GA) has sponsored two bills that would be steps in the right direction and are
supported by the RSC Budget. The Official Time Reform Act and the Official Time Reporting Act
would ban federal employees from lobbying while on official time and require OPM to report to
Congress on all agency personnel conducting union duties at work, respectively.
● The HERCULES Act, sponsored by RSC Chairman Kevin Hern (R-OK), which would limit adverse
employment action appeals. The HERCULES Act would limit outside appeals to formal disciplinary
actions, such as removal or demotion, and not compensation decisions. It would also limit the venue
for outside appeals to one office in response to disciplinary action.
● The RSC Budget also supports RSC Chairman Kevin Hern’s (R-OK) Union Accountability Act, which
would rescind a Biden executive order expanding federal government related labor union powers and
make it harder to fire workers for misconduct.

Reforms to Employee Pay - The federal government’s current compensation framework largely ignores the
more efficient compensation approach used in the private sector. Federal government employees receive an
average of 17 percent more in total compensation, when benefits are included, than their counterparts in the
private sector.[481] This is an additional $36.55 billion burden borne by American taxpayers. The RSC Budget
supports the following compensation reforms:
● Reform federal worker paid leave policies to match the value of benefits paid by the private sector.
This reform alone would save taxpayers more than $75 billion over 10 years.
● Automatic raises for federal employees should be eliminated. Pay increases for federal employees
should be merit-based. This would save taxpayers $57 billion over 10 years.[482]
● Congress should require that agencies only award bonuses when employees meet the standard for
“exceeds fully successful.” Exceeds Fully Successful, according to the OPM guidance is “reserved for
the individuals who are delivering measurable outcomes for the American public in a way that is
measurably beyond the standard set for fully successful.”
● Congress should impose reasonable limits on the size of bonuses that can be awarded and the
number of senior employees who can receive an award. More than $1 billion in bonuses for federal
employees were paid by the taxpayers in 2016. This included $1.7 million in bonuses to IRS
employees who were sanctioned by the agency for misconduct.[483] The RSC Budget would require

109
 disclosure of all bonuses for federal employees and require reports to Congress on all large cash
bonuses.
● Congress should repeal current law restrictions that prohibit basing bonus decisions on the relative
performance of an employee compared to their peers.
● Congress should reform the federal pay scale to attract and reward high skilled, highly productive
federal workers, and stop overpaying less qualified employees.

Reform Federal Employee Pension Plans - Federal employees hired since 1984 are entitled to a two-part
retirement program, including the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) defined benefit plan and a
401k-style plan with up to a 5 percent government matching contribution. This budget recommends a
number of common-sense reforms to bring federal employee retirement costs in line with the private sector.
This includes: requiring new federal workers to be enrolled in the defined contribution TSP system rather
than the defined benefit FERS pension system - which would give workers needed control over their
retirement savings, ensure solvency for federal pensions and save taxpayers more than $235 billion over 10
years;[484] computing a retiree’s benefit based on their highest five, and not three, years of earnings;
increasing the share of employee contributions to FERS over time; reducing or eliminating the COLA for
FERS and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); eliminating the Special Retirement Supplement
(SRS), which provides additional benefits for retirees younger than 62 but who had a long federal work
history; and reforming the interest rate provided by the G Fund in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) to more
accurately reflect the yield on a short-term T-bill rate.

While the Middle-Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required new federal employees to
contribute more towards their retirement, no changes were made for current federal employees. This
proposal would equalize the treatment for all federal workers.

Federal Employee Health Care - The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) provides health
insurance coverage for federal employees and their dependents. The portion of these costs covered by the
taxpayer does not change with the higher-priced coverage options. As such, federal employees have the
incentive to choose the more expensive plans on the taxpayer’s dime.

The RSC Budget would transition to a premium support system for the FEHBP. The government would offer
a standard federal contribution towards the purchase of health insurance and employees would be
responsible for paying the rest. This option would encourage employees to purchase plans with the
appropriate amount of coverage that fits their needs. The government should also reduce its contributions to
federal workers’ premiums to align with the private sector more closely. The RSC Budget would also
eliminate FEHB retirement benefits for new hires. As noted by the Heritage Foundation, federal employees
are able to participate in the FEHB plan even after retirement while having large parts of the cost subsidized
by taxpayers.[485] This is a benefit unavailable to virtually all private sector workers.

Use a More Accurate Measure of Inflation, Government Wide – The RSC Budget would adopt a different
measure of inflation across all government programs with the exception of Social Security and Medicare (see
respective Medicare and Social Security sections). Many federal programs rely on different measures of
inflation to determine benefit levels. This is typically done using changes in the Consumer Price Index for All

110
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) or the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W). Both measures track the changes in prices of goods and services. However, these measures do not
consider when a cheaper and more innovative product is available that causes consumers to change their
spending habits. This would be like assuming households spend their money in the same proportions on the
same goods and services they did a century ago. To account for real-world changes in product preferences,
the BLS has published a more accurate measure of inflation since 2002 called the Chained Consumer Price
Index (chained CPI or C-CPI-U). This budget proposes using the more accurate measure for inflation, chained
CPI.

Leverage Common Contracts - The RSC Budget supports a proposal contained in the Performance Plan
crafted by the Trump Administration’s OMB for agencies to leverage common contracts to allow for taxpayer
savings and increased efficiency. The elimination of fragmented buying by agencies and duplicative contracts
to the same vendor for largely the same work is estimated to lead to savings of billions of taxpayer
dollars.[486] Congress should require agencies to use common contracting techniques when such practice is
feasible.

Require Disclosure on Taxpayer-Funded Advertisements - Until we eliminate all federal advertisements, in

the interest of transparency and accountability, the public should know when taxpayer dollars are used to
promote government projects. These advertisements should include a disclaimer identifying this fact, as well
as the cost of the advertisement to taxpayers.

Limit Federal Employee Conferences - Spending limits should be put in place for federal employee
conferences, and the heads of federal agencies should be required to personally approve the most expensive
conferences.

Prohibit the Federal Government from Bailing Out Irresponsible States, Territories and Local
Governments - Taxpayers in financially healthy states should not be responsible for the reckless behavior
and mistakes of other parts of the country. The RSC Budget condemns all forms of bailouts to state and
local governments. One area where state and local governments have been particularly irresponsible is
public pensions. The RSC Budget supports the State and Local Pensions Accountability and Security Act,
sponsored by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), which would prohibit the Department of the Treasury and the Federal
Reserve Board from providing any form of financial assistance to a state or local pension plan. The RSC
Budget also opposes efforts to amend existing federal bankruptcy law to allow state governments to access
federal bankruptcy proceedings.

Defund EcoHealth Alliance – The RSC Budget supports Rep. Guy Reschenthaler’s (R-PA) Defund EcoHealth
Alliance Act. This bill would prohibit any federal funding of the EcoHealth Alliance, the nonprofit research
organization that partners with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to study coronaviruses and whose research
may have been responsible for the outbreak of COVID-19.

Transportation and Infrastructure

Return Transportation and Infrastructure Policy to the States – Quality infrastructure is an important
component of a growing economy. Unfortunately, the federal government has badly mismanaged the federal

111
highway program, which forces hardworking Americans to send their tax dollars to Washington and beg to
have some of it returned to their state to fix roads and bridges. This budget would transfer the federal
government’s control over most highway and transit programs to state and local governments while limiting
federal transportation spending to core federal duties. These responsibilities would center primarily on the
Interstate Highway System and transportation infrastructure on federal land. This model closely resembles
the Transportation Empowerment Act introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)[487]and former Representative
and current Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis (R-FL).[488]

Phase Out the Mass Transit Account - Billions of dollars per year are taken away from programs that
support roads and bridges to fund programs that instead support initiatives purely local in nature or only
benefit liberal special interests. In FY2021, 1.085 billion was redirected from the Highway Trust Fund –
funded by hardworking taxpayers through the federal gas tax - to the Mass Transit Account (MTA).[489]
Money that is diverted to the MTA is primarily spent on state and local projects such as subways, buses, rails
and ferry systems, with much of it funneled through the Federal Transit Administration.[490] Diverting
taxpayer funds from the HTF cynically moves funds from being used on the highways that connect our
states to projects that should be financed at the state or local level, contributes to shortfalls in the HTF, and
eventually results in bailouts of the trust fund. The RSC Budget would phase out the MTA. Additionally, this
budget would rescind unobligated mass transit funds provided by President Biden’s Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.[491]

Eliminate Transportation Alternatives Funding – The Transpiration Alternatives (TA) program receives
money diverted from the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program. President Biden’s
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act increased funding for this program from $850 million per year to
$1.384 billion in 2022.[492] The program is set to receive significant increases in taxpayer funding through
2026, when it will have budget authority of $1.498 billion. The RSC Budget would eliminate this program,
which is used to fund liberal pet projects in urban areas – including so-called “green infrastructure” to
advance the left’s radical climate agenda.[493]

Eliminate the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality - The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Program diverts highway funding to a variety of non-highway programs that are supposed to reduce
congestion and improve air quality. The CMAQ Program is set to receive increased funding due to enactment
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, with the program’s authorization increasing from $2.538
billion in 2022 to $2.746 billion in 2026.[494] The RSC Budget would eliminate this program because it does
little more than use taxpayer dollars to fund local projects favored by liberals in urban areas.[495]

Gas Tax Increase Opposition - While liberals favor an increase in the gas tax to allow for increased levels of
spending on their pet projects, any tax increase would hurt hardworking Americans at the pump, harm the
economy, and would be especially harmful today given the significant increases in gas prices caused by
President Biden’s war on fossil fuels. The RSC Budget would prohibit any gas tax increase.

Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Infrastructure - When carrying out the federal highway program,
states are forced to comply with a variety of complex environmental regulations that can delay the

112
completion of important transportation projects for years, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water
Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The RSC Budget supports codification of a rule from President Trump that streamlined the NEPA permitting
process, improved transparency, and produced short and reliable timelines for being able to go through the
NEPA permitting process.[496] [497] However, President Biden has finalized a regulation overturning President
Trump’s common-sense reform to NEPA. President Biden’s executive order would needlessly delay
infrastructure projects, including pipelines, highways, and other projects, by requiring federal agencies to
include so-called “climate impacts” of projects.[498] While this rule will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, it will needlessly delay highway and pipeline projects that would promote economic growth. The
RSC Budget also opposes efforts by the Biden Administration to appease far-left climate activists by
intentionally delaying highway-expansion project funding opportunities created by the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act.[499]

The RSC Budget supports Rep. Bob Good’s (R-VA) bill to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, a job-killing Big Labor
regulation that requires that an inflated level of wages be paid for all construction and contracting jobs that
use any federal dollars. Removing this job-killing requirement would significantly reduce the cost of
infrastructure projects and promote good paying construction jobs. This commonsense policy would save
taxpayers more than $88 billion.[500] In the meantime, the RSC Budget supports Rep. Paul Gosar’s (R-AZ)
Responsibility in Federal Contracting Act, which would require prevailing wage rates to be more accurately
calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

Additionally, the RSC Budget supports President Trump’s initiative to have a single federal agency be
designated as the lead agency for handling a permit request. This is similar to a process outlined in Rep. Tom
McClintock’s (R-CA) Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act.

Reduce Infrastructure Costs - When the federal government funds a transportation project, it is subject to
several different federal labor regulations that drive up the cost of the project. When projects cost more than
necessary because of special interest regulatory requirements, taxpayers and commuters are harmed. These
requirements should be eliminated to give taxpayers the best deal possible.

The RSC Budget also supports former RSC Chairman Jim Banks’ (R-IN) bill that would allow state
governments to run concession areas at state government-owned concession areas. The current regulation
against this practice only hinders the abilities of state governments to operate their own rest areas and fund
legitimate functions of the states’ governments.

Equalize Cost-Sharing for Disasters - To ensure states are not incentivized to rely on federal coffers for
disaster relief, the RSC Budget proposes reducing the federal cost share to 50 percent, equalizing the cost to
both the federal and state governments.

Privatizing the Air Traffic Control Functions of the Federal Aviation Administration - The RSC Budget
supports the goal of working towards privatizing the Air Traffic Control (ATC) functions of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and reducing associated aviation taxes. As many countries have moved

113
toward similar reforms, privatization would promote public safety while producing less expensive and
better-quality services.

Judiciary
Keep the Nine - This budget supports Rep. Dusty Johnson’s (R-SD) H.J.Res.11, which would oppose efforts
by Democrats and President Biden to pack the court by amending the Constitution to maintain the current
Court’s size of nine justices.

Reform the Ninth Circuit - The RSC Budget supports Rep. Andy Biggs’ (R-AZ) Judicial Administration and
Improvement Act, which would split the 9th circuit into two districts.

Protect Private Property from Government Seizure - The Fifth Amendment provides that “Private property
[shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” However, the Supreme Court put this
important guarantee of private property rights in jeopardy in Kelo v. City of New London. That ruling
determined local governments may use eminent ___domain to seize private property and then sell it for
development purposes. To prevent this type of government abuse, federal economic development funding to
local governments should be dependent on states’ restraint from using eminent ___domain for private economic
development.

114
115
The Founding Fathers were explicit that federal spending be limited to the specific authorities spelled out in
Article I, Section 8. Spending federal funds on activities outside of these confines is constitutionally dubious
and serves little purpose other than to empower an increasingly woke and weaponized administrative state
at the expense of hardworking taxpayers. Discretionary spending has gotten out of control. According to
CBO, FY 2022 discretionary outlays totaled $1.7 trillion, with non-defense spending eclipsing defense
spending.[501] Similarly, growth in non-defense spending has outpaced defense spending for over 50 years,
according to the Cato Institute.[502] Since Biden took office, he created a record $10 trillion in new spending
and seems to be only calling for more.

Despite Biden’s record spending and his claims that there is nothing that can be cut, it seems that every day,
hardworking Americans learn about another wasteful project that Washington bureaucrats use to enrich
their cronies. House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) has chronicled many of the
outrageous spending items that should be cut. Among them are the following: $2 billion in stimulus checks
to ineligible individuals—including $13 million to dead people,[503] $2 million to grow trees in New York,[504]
$4 million for a nature park in Texas,[505] $500 million for a solar panel company currently being sued by
investors for fraud,[506] stimulus funding for the Boston Marathon bomber,[507] $7.2 million for horse tracks in
Arizona,[508] $7 million to promote seafood in Alaska,[509] $5 million to build walking trails dedicated to the
history of moonshine,[510] and $5.25 million for so-called “Environmental Justice Groups” to fund tree
walks.[511] In other words, there is no shortage of waste and fraud in federal spending that should be
eliminated. Anyone who doubts this should take a few minutes to peruse more examples provided by
Chairman Smith.[512]

The RSC Budget seeks to fund only those non-defense discretionary (NDD) programs and activities that fall
within Congress’s explicitly delegated authorities. Overall, it would shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy
by reducing NDD spending by more than $4.75 trillion over the next decade. Specific NDD spending
reductions and reforms are listed below.

Within the Jurisdiction of Multiple House Appropriations Subcommittees:

Prohibit Funds for Government Promotion – According to the GAO, the federal government spends roughly
$1.5 billion of taxpayer money on public relations activities a year.[513] The RSC Budget would eliminate
government spending that is meant to simply promote more government while protecting funds used for
military recruitment.

Global Change Research: The U.S. Global Change Research (USGCRP) is a federal program operating
across multiple federal agencies that is charged with coordinating, “…federal research and investments in
understanding the forces shaping the global environment, both human and natural, and their impacts on
society.”[514] This program is using taxpayer dollars to further the Left’s climate agenda. The RSC Budget
would eliminate funding for the program.

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies:
Repeal United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Catfish Inspection Program – The USDA Catfish
Inspection Program should be repealed. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with inspecting
all seafood and fish, but catfish is inexplicably the responsibility of the USDA. GAO has made it clear such an

116
arrangement is nonsensical, issuing a report titled “Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be
Assigned to USDA.”[515] The RSC Budget would repeal the program.

Eliminate Land Acquisition by the Forest Service – The federal government should be finding ways to
reduce its land holdings and associated costs, not expand them. The Forest Service already manages 193
million acres of land, more than six times the size of North Carolina.[516] The federal government owns more
than 640 million acres.[517] This budget would cease land acquisition by the Forest Service. In FY 2023, the
federal government spent $124.438 million on these activities.

Reduce Funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Certain functions of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program should be carried out by the industries this service
regulates. This budget would reduce funding commensurately.

Eliminate the Forest Products Laboratory – The goal of this entity is to produce new products from forestry
resources to aid in the conservation of forest land.[518] This is duplicative of private sector industries that
operate in forested areas. It has also been used by the Biden Administration to promote woke concepts such
as “Tree Equity.”

Eliminate the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account – The Water and Wastewater Loan and
Grant program provides funding for sewage and sanitation services in certain local communities but is best
handled by the private sector or local and state governments. President Trump proposed eliminating this
program, citing duplication with other efforts. In FY 2023, $909 million was appropriated to this account.

Rural Energy for America – This program subsidizes green energy and efficiency projects that are expensive
and inefficient compared to other energy sources. In FY 2023, $20 million in discretionary funding was used
for these programs.

Repeal funding for Agricultural Research Climate Hubs – USDA Climate hubs use taxpayer dollars to
further the left’s radical climate agenda through “climate research” and “climate-smart solutions.” The USDA
should be focused on helping American farmers, not subsidizing the priorities of liberal special interests. The
RSC Budget would eliminate funding for climate hubs.[519]

Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies:

Eliminate the Economic Development Administration - The Economic Development Administration (EDA) is
a program that subsidizes private companies. Local economic development is best handled by state and local
governments, and this budget would eliminate this duplicative program. In FY 2023, the federal government
spent $1.604 billion on this program.

Eliminate the National Technical Information Service - The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) is
an outdated agency that physically distributes government documents and data. Most of these documents
are available to the public for free online.

117
Eliminate the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership - The Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP) provides financial support to local centers that provide technical services to small
manufacturing companies. Originally meant to be self-sustaining, the program is dependent on annual
federal subsidies and should more appropriately be funded solely at the state and federal level. This
budget’s pro-growth tax reforms will significantly increase manufacturing investment, making this program,
which received $239 million in discretionary funding for FY2023, unnecessary.

Eliminate the Legal Services Corporation - The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) engages in
taxpayer-funded advocacy for liberal political causes and lobbying. In fact, the Reagan Administration tried
to eliminate this subsidy to liberal special interests only to be foiled by Hillary Clinton and other liberal
activists.[520] The LSC is also marked by misuse of taxpayer money and redundancy as many of LSC’s
programs are offered by the states. The LSC received $580 million in FY 2023.

Reduce Funding for the International Trade Administration - The International Trade Administration (ITA)
provides export assistance services to private companies in a way that is duplicative with services available
from private entities. The ITA has also used taxpayer funds to advance the radical climate change agenda
pushed by the left, including the implementation of a “Clean Technologies Export Competitiveness Strategy”
and working to implement President Biden’s radical Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad.[521] The RSC Budget would reduce funding for this program, which received $613 million
in FY 2023.

Eliminate Woke Funding at the National Science Foundation – The National Science Foundation—meant to
promote scientific breakthroughs that increase the nation’s health and prosperity—has increasingly used
taxpayer dollars to advance a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) agenda that divides Americans based on
race and gender. One study from the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology found that, “As of
2020, 30.4% of all grants had one of the following politicized terms: “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,”
“gender,” “marginalize,” “underrepresented,” or “disparity.” This is up from 2.9% in 1990.”[522] The RSC
Budget would reduce discretionary funding for the NSF to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to
promote radical left-wing ideologies that divide Americans.[523]

Eliminate Certain National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Grants and Education -
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) currently operates several grants and programs
that do not provide significant support to the core mission of NOAA, including several that align with the
left’s climate agenda. These include the Sea Grant program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System, Coastal Zone Management Grants, the Office of Education within NOAA and the Pacific Coastal
Salmon Recovery Fund. The RSC budget would eliminate these programs and return the NOAA to its
original mission. The RSC Budget would reduce NOAA funding to prevent:
● Discriminatory and quota-based employment practices based on radical and divisive “diversity, equity,
and inclusion” ideology.
● “Climate products and services.”
● Subsidies for inefficient and unreliable wind energy.[524]

118
Prevent Funding for Woke Activities at the Environmental and Natural Resources Division and the Civil
Rights Division within the Department of Justice - The DOJ’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division
has been linked with the practice of sue-and-settle to reward left-wing special interests. Taxpayer dollars
should not be used to support the left’s “environmental justice” agenda. Further, the DOJ Civil Rights
Division has been continuously weaponized against conservatives. As noted by the Center for American
Renewal, “Kristen Clarke, current head of the CRD, recently authorized DOJ agents to engage in armed raids
on the homes of pro-life activists while turning a blind eye to over 100 acts of far-left extremists vandalizing
and firebombing churches and women’s pregnancy centers in the wake of the Dobbs decision.”[525]

Eliminate the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice - The DOJ’s Community Relations
Services Program deviates from the core purpose of the DOJ to investigate and prosecute violations of
federal law. Instead, the entity attempts to act as “peacemaker” in local disputes and has been used by the
Biden Administration to push its woke gender and CRT ideologies.[526] In FY 2023, the federal government
spent $25 million on this program.

Prevent funding for woke activities at the Office of Justice – The Office of Justice has used taxpayer dollars
to provide funding to sanctuary cities and fund organizations that support cashless bail and DEI ideology.[527]
The RSC Budget would reduce funding for these woke programs.

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies:

Eliminate Department of Energy Climate Funding – The Department of Energy has numerous programs
that use taxpayer dollars to promote the left’s radical climate agenda. As documented by the Center for
American Renewal, the Department also houses the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, which is
responsible for implementing the Biden Administration’s Justice40 initiative,[528] which exploits
disadvantaged communities to subsidize “green” special interests with taxpayer dollars.[529] The Department
of Energy is also pushing the Administration’s radical climate agenda through the Office of Science. In the
Departments FY 2023 Budget Request, it requested “…$7.8 billion for the Office of Science for increased
investments in Administration priorities including basic research on climate change.”[530] The Department’s
request also notes that the Office of Environmental Management is taking a lead role in implementing the
Justice40 initiative.[531] The RSC Budget would reduce the taxpayer funding financing this radical climate
agenda.

Applied Energy Programs – The RSC Budget recognizes that a pro-energy independence agenda needs
deregulation and pro-growth tax reform, not economically distortionary federal subsidies. Relying on private
market forces will increase supply, enhance efficiency, and reduce consumer costs—the opposite approach of
the Biden Administration. The RSC Budget would apply these principles to eliminate the Department of
Energy’s applied energy programs as also recommended in the past by President Trump’s budget. For
instance, the RSC Budget would eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE),
which provides taxpayer support to inefficient and expensive green energy sources favored by liberal elites.
EERE received $5.7 billion in FY 2023. Similarly, the RSC Budget would eliminate the Advanced Research
Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) program, which was created by the failed 2009 stimulus law and uses
taxpayer dollars to fund high-risk green energy projects. Taxpayers should not bear the burden for research

119
projects that not even the most speculative and daring members of the energy industry will take on
themselves. ARPA-E received $470 million in FY2023.

Eliminate Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program - The Title 17 Innovative Technology
Loan Guarantee Program provides loans to green energy projects. This is the program that gave us the
Solyndra scandal where taxpayers lost more than $500 million after the Obama Administration gambled on
a politically favored company. The RSC Budget would eliminate this program which received $17 million in
FY 2023.

Eliminate the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program - The Advanced
Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan program provides subsidies to vehicle manufacturing
companies to produce greener cars. The RSC Budget would eliminate this program, which received $10
million in FY 2023.

Eliminate Regional Commissions - The RSC Budget recommends cutting regional commissions, which are
duplicative of other federal initiatives as well as state and local programs. The commissions received $546
million in taxpayer funding in FY2023.

Reduce Funding for the Department of Energy’s Biological and Environmental Research Program - This
program moves well past basic research and is duplicative of private sector efforts. This budget would
reduce funding to focus on core responsibilities and basic research, not on the program’s climate research
objectives.

Eliminate Grants for Conservation through the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs - These
subsidies force taxpayers to subsidize renovations for higher-income Americans. In FY 2023, the federal
government spent $366 million on these grants.

Financial Services and General Government

Stop Unfair IRS Enforcement – Along with rescinding the unused mandatory budgetary authority from the
Inflation Reduction Act to hire 87,000 new IRS agents, the RSC Budget would additionally reduce
discretionary funding for IRS enforcement. This budget would simplify the tax code which would
significantly reduce the need for enforcement funds and would protect lower- and middle-class Americans
from these intrusive audits,[532] and would stop politically driven harassment.[533]

Eliminate the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund - The CDFI Fund “was created
for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and community development,” a task more
appropriately funded by the private sector—not the woke Biden Administration.[534] The CDFI Fund received
$324 million in funding in FY2023. President Trump also supported eliminating this program.[535]

Eliminate the Entrepreneurial Development Program - This program provides technical assistance and
education for business owners deemed to be able to rapidly expand their business. It is not the government’s
role to determine which businesses should expand, especially as the Biden Administration continue their

120
efforts to subsidize their radical woke agenda with taxpayer dollars. This program received $320 million in
FY 2023.

Reduce Funding for the Election Assistance Commission

As noted by then-Congressman Gregg Harper (R-MS), “The existence of the EAC is not necessary to conduct
federal elections and is a waste of taxpayer funds. The EAC was only meant to run temporarily following the
2000 election. Instead, this organization has taken federal resources for a decade and a half. To date, most of
its functions have ended, and those remaining are easily transferable to the Federal Elections Commission.
What taxpayers are left with is an agency that has outlived its usefulness, mismanaged its resources, and
cost taxpayers millions.”[536] The RSC Budget would reduce funding for this commission, which received
$101 million in funding for FY 2023.

Interior, Environment and Related Agencies:

Reduce Funding for the EPA - The Biden Administration is working to implement the most radical
environmental agenda in the history of the country.[537] The President has used the EPA to pursue a far
reaching agenda, including a new $180 billion rule on emissions standards for light-duty and heavy-duty
motor vehicles,[538] new methane rules that will increase the cost of energy, and a more harmful version of
the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan.[539] These regulations will cost jobs, reduce wages and force
middle-class Americans to pay higher prices for energy. This budget would significantly reduce the EPA’s
funding, rolls back the regulatory excess of the Biden Administration, and returns the agency to its much
more limited original purpose. This will save the taxpayers billions of dollars per year while significantly
reducing wage-lowering regulations.

Reduce EPA Research and Development Funding - The RSC Budget would reduce research and
development (R&D) funding within the EPA. It would limit funding to basic and early-stage R&D and prohibit
any research subsidies that force taxpayers to subsidize mature green energy sectors.

Eliminate the Surface Water Protection Program – States are much better equipped to manage bodies of
water within their jurisdictions. Allowing states to manage these bodies of water will ensure better
management of resources as states have a better understanding of the needs of their communities and can
benefit from flexibility. This program received $224.492 million in FY 2023.

Eliminate the Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification Program - This emissions standards
program does little to promote a cleaner environment but has been very successful at raising costs for
consumers. This budget would eliminate this program, which received $117.341 million in FY 2023.

Eliminate the Integrated Environmental Strategies Programs - This program uses taxpayer dollars to
promote the radical green agenda overseas. If liberals want to promote expensive and inefficient energy
sources, they should do so out of their own pocket rather than the taxpayers, who provided $11.297 million
in funding for this program in FY 2023.

Eliminate EPA Grants, Climate Programs, Regional Offices, and Wasteful Spending - The RSC Budget
would eliminate grant programs administered by the EPA that allocate billions of taxpayer dollars annually

121
to finance “Environmental Justice” Initiatives and climate change priorities at the state and local level that do
nothing to better the lives of the American people.[540] [541] [542] Additionally, the RSC Budget’s significant
rollback of harmful environmental regulations would reduce the need for additional funding to comply with
federal regulations.

Under President Obama, the EPA placed additional regulations on ozone standards, a naturally-occurring
gas also released by power plants, vehicles, and factories. This budget supports reinstating the original
75ppb standard and would oppose more onerous regulatory increases from the EPA.

This budget proposes eliminating the following eight climate programs that kill jobs, needlessly increase the
cost of energy, and do almost nothing to promote a clean environment:
● regulation of GHG emissions from vehicles (as well as non-road equipment, locomotives, aircraft and
transportation fuels).
● regulation of CO2 emissions from power plants, factory boilers and other stationary sources.
● the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.
● the Global Methane Initiative. [543]
● the Climate Resilience Evaluation Awareness Tool.
● the Green Infrastructure Program.[544]
● the Climate Resiliency Water Utilities Initiative.[545]
● Climate research funding for the Office of Research and Development.

Eliminate the Climate Protection Program and leave the Paris Climate Accords – Among other damaging
regulatory activities, this program is responsible for enforcing U.S. obligations under the Paris Climate
Accord. The RSC Budget would exit the Paris Climate Accords and eliminate funding for this program.

Eliminate Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Grants – Grants made under Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
(DERA) have gone to wasteful projects involving cherry pickers, electrifying parking spaces at rest stops, and
retrofitting old tractors. DERA grants are wasteful, do nothing to protect the environment, and should be
eliminated.

Eliminate Land Acquisition at the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Park Service – According to the CRS, “The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, 28 percent
of the land mass of the United States. The federal government owns over 80 percent of the land in Nevada
and 45.9 percent, on average, of the contiguous western states.”[546] Simply put, the federal government
does not need more land. The RSC Budget would prohibit any new land acquisition by the Bureau of Land
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service.

Eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities –
Taxpayers should not be forced to fund art that the private market is unwilling to support, especially when
that art pushes the left’s ideological agenda. In FY 2023, the federal government spent $414 million on
these programs.

122
Eliminate Subsidies for the D.C. Opera House (The John F. Kennedy Center) - The Kennedy Center’s
website lists 21 corporate and foundation donors who provide annual commitments of $1,000,000 or
greater. This list even includes the Embassy of the UAE.[547] FY 2023, the federal government spent $46
million on this program.

Reduce Taxpayer Funding for the Smithsonian – The Smithsonian is paid for, and meant to be enjoyed by,
all Americans regardless of their political beliefs. Unfortunately, in recent years the Smithsonian has
increasingly used taxpayer funding to promote a liberal ideological agenda. For example, according the
American Center for Law and Justice, pro-life students visiting the museum this January were subject to
harassment by Smithsonian staff and threatened with expulsion from the museum unless they removed their
hats that read “Rosary PRO-LIFE.”[548] This budget applauds Representatives Chip Roy (R-TX), Josh Brecheen
(R-TN) and Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Tim Scott (R-SC) for highlighting this
incident and demanding answers.[549] Taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize harassment and
discrimination. Accordingly, the RSC Budget would reduce taxpayer funding for the Smithsonian.

Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies:

Eliminate the National Labor Relations Board - The DOJ already oversees a wide variety of civil, criminal,
and administrative issues, including antitrust and voting rights. DOJ is certainly capable of handling claims of
illegal labor practices and could do so without the pro-union boss bias and partisanship endemic to the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB received $299 million in funding for FY 2023.

Eliminate the Job Corps – The Job Corps program, while well-intentioned, simply does not produce the
results it was created to achieve despite $1.76 billion in funding for FY 2023. As noted by the Heritage
Foundation, Job Corps participants are less likely to complete high school and attend or complete college.[550]
Meanwhile, wage gains for participants are negligible.

Eliminate the Senior Community Service Employment Program - The DOL’s Senior Community Service
Employment Program (SCSEP) provides job training for unemployed seniors, including through subsidized
community service activities. President Trump proposed eliminating this ineffective program.[551] In FY 2023,
the federal government spent $405 million on this program.

Eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs - The DOL’s Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) was originally created to enforce President Johnson’s executive order
prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors. At the time, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) did not exist. Now, strong anti-discrimination laws apply to all employers. This Office is
duplicative and should be eliminated to spare taxpayers from ideological witch hunts carried out by woke
bureaucrats who wish to force their ideological agenda on contractors. In FY 2023, the federal government
spent $111 million on this Office.

Eliminate the International Labor Affairs Bureau - The DOL’s International Labor Affairs Bureau’s (ILAB)
works to promote onerous and duplicative labor regulations among the nations of the world and received
$116.125 million in funding in FY 2023.

123
Convert Health Resources and Services Administration Funding into Block Grants and Eliminate Title X
Family Planning Funding – The RSC Budget would convert funding for the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) into block grants, which would empower communities by allowing primary care
centers to operate free of federal dictates. Additionally, the RSC Budget would eliminate funding for Title X,
known as the family planning federal grant program, which provides abortion providers with federal funds to
terminate pregnancies and end the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent babies each year. Planned
Parenthood has historically been the largest recipient of Title X grants. In FY 2023, the federal government
spent $286.5 million on Title X grants.[552]

Devolve Energy Assistance - The GAO has found that LIHEAP is at risk of fraud and improper payments.[553]
This type of assistance would be more appropriately handled by state and local governments, or the private
sector. This budget’s policies unleashing American energy production will significantly reduce utility costs
and significantly reduce the need for this fraud-prone assistance. In FY 2023, the federal government spent
$6.1 billion on LIHEAP.

Eliminate Duplicative Activities of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality - The Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) looks to conduct research to improve the quality and safety of
healthcare and received $374 million in funding for FY 2023. Similar health services research is already
conducted in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and by the private sector.

Consolidate the National Institutes of Health – The NIH itself has become bloated and has strayed from its
core basic science mission. Not only does the NIH fund questionable research, but it also failed to provide
proper oversight of funding that eventually made its way to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[554] The RSC
Budget supports reducing funding for the NIH and consolidating the NIH’s 27 institutes to allow the agency
to operate more efficiently. For example, experts have long endorsed merging the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) which cover similar
scientific research.

Controlling Indirect Costs for NIH Grants – Under current law, recipients of NIH grants cannot spend more
than 25 percent of an award on indirect costs. Yet universities, particularly elite universities, have managed
to work the system resulting in the agency allocating 52 percent of its research dollars on such costs. This
budget would more effectively cap indirect costs to ensure such funds are not funneled to politically-favored
woke institutions. Further, Congress should consolidate authority for indirect rate negotiations for NIH grants
in a single office at the NIH and implement reporting requirements for such costs.

Ensuring NIH Funds Do Not Go to Adversarial Nations – The pandemic highlighted the lack of
accountability for funds going overseas, including funds flowing to research supported by the Chinese
Communist Party. This budget would ensure American research dollars do not go to companies and entities
owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, the Russian Federation, and other adversarial nations.

Eliminate Funding for the Left’s Social Agenda at the CDC – This budget would refocus the CDC on its core
mission as a public health emergency response agency. It would eliminate funding geared toward the Left’s
progressive social priorities, including those related to firearms, climate change, and “ending structural

124
racism.”[555] The budget would also shift funding for CDC efforts that are duplicative of efforts conducted by
NIH, such as those on heart disease and tobacco.

Eliminate the Community Services Block Grant Program - The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)
program provides funding to projects that aim to reduce poverty and address low-income needs. CSBG
funding is not tied to performance outcomes and some of the services are already funded through other
federal programs or by private or state and local efforts. In FY 2023, the federal government spent more
than $770 million on this program.

End Ineffective Education Grant Programs - The federal government should not use taxpayer dollars to
manipulate school districts around the country. Education should be managed at the state, local and family
levels where parents can be most empowered to be involved in their children’s education. Education should
not be controlled by liberal bureaucrats in Washington who want to impose their radical woke ideology on
children. Accordingly, this budget would eliminate the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants
Program, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, the Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant Program, the School Improvement Programs Account, and competitive and project grant
programs under Every Student Succeeds Act.

Additionally, the RSC Budget would allow states to completely opt out of the federal government’s
burdensome and costly education funding mandates and have the option to receive federal education funds
in the form of a block grant. This proposal is largely based on the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success
(A-PLUS) Act sponsored by former Representative and now-Senator Ted Budd (R-NC). States could use
funds for any state authorized education expenditure, including school choice initiatives.

Eliminate the Corporation for National and Community Service - The Corporation for National and
Community Service (CNCS) operates four major programs: AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, the Social Innovation
Fund, and the Volunteer Generation Fund. These types of efforts are not a core responsibility of the federal
government and would be more appropriately funded and operated by civil society. In FY 2023, the federal
government spent $1.314 billion on the CNCS.

Eliminate Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - A free society should not have
government-supported media outlets, especially ones that so often carry water for the left’s agenda. The
RSC Budget would eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In FY 2023, the federal
government spent $535 million on this program.

Eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services - The Institute of Museum and Library Services
(IMLS) provides grants to local museums and libraries, a task that can be better handled by the private sector
and local governments. The RSC Budget would eliminate the IMLS, which received $295 million in funding
in FY 2023.

Restrict Pell Grants to Students from Needy Families – Excessive subsidies for the cost of college have led
to massive tuition inflation, with colleges pocketing the subsidies and passing on the cost to students and
families. In fact, “A 2017 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the average tuition

125
increase associated with expansion of student loans is as much as 60 cents per dollar.”[556] The Pell Grant
Program was intended to help people from impoverished families attend college and enter the workforce
with marketable skills. By limiting eligibility to students from families with income at or under 250 percent
the federal poverty line, we can ensure Pell Grant funding is targeted to students for whom the program was
designed.

State and Foreign Operations:

Reduce Funding for Foreign Aid Accounts – After accounting for the specific funding reductions outlined
below, the RSC Budget would uniformly reduce funding for International Assistance, Multilateral Assistance,
Diplomatic Programs and Economic Support Fund accounts to mirror and expand on the proposal in a past
President Trump budget. Unfortunately, left-wing ideology has infected large swaths of these programs. As
noted by Simon Hankinson of the Heritage Foundation, “the State Department has become distracted by a
leftist agenda that weakens its ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy now and in the future. Rather than
concentrating on the ‘values at the heart of the American way of life,’ as the JSP instructs, the State
Department has allowed itself to be captured by ephemeral fixations that are tangential to America’s core
values at best and inimical to them at worst.”

Eliminate Certain International Organizations and Programs Funding- The International Organizations and
Programs Account provides voluntary contributions to international organizations, many of which do not
represent American interests and values. Within this account, the U.N. Population Fund provides abortion
funding abroad. Funds should also be withheld from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), as well as the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is comprised of member nations like Cuba,
Venezuela, China and Rwanda, all with abysmal records on human rights. In FY 2023, the federal
government spent $140.5 million on these programs.

End Global Green Energy and Climate Change Funding - The plethora of programs and accounts that have
spent U.S. taxpayer funds around the world for the radical green agenda must be eliminated. It is bad
enough that the Biden Administration foists this upon American citizens.

Enforce Cap on U.N. Peacekeeping Missions - The Foreign Relations Authorization Act caps the amount of
U.S. contributions for U.N. peacekeeping operations to no more than 25 percent of the total amount for
operations. However, the U.S. is currently paying 26.94 percent of all U.N. peacekeeping operations.[557]
Reducing the U.S. contribution for peacekeeping to the amount allowed by law will save taxpayers more
than $100 million annually while increasing the vested interest of global partners to more prudently address
regional problems.

Cut Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Funding - The Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance Fund operates as a slush fund for liberal bureaucrats to subsidize Biden’s open borders agenda
and should be reduced.

Reconstitute the U.S. Information Agency and Eliminate the Under Secretary of State for Public
Diplomacy and Public Affairs and Most of its Bureaus - The U.S Information Agency (USIA) was the U.S.
government agency in charge of public diplomacy, counter-disinformation, and international broadcasting

126
efforts from 1953-1999. However, in 1999, most of the public diplomacy aspects of the USIA were moved to
the U.S. Department of State. Rather than improving public diplomacy efforts, the current design has largely
failed to advance U.S. interests, especially in an age with rising Russian and Chinese disinformation
campaigns. The dismantling of USIA “crippled U.S. public diplomacy operations in ways that have been
lasting and profound—a self-inflicted wound from which the United States is still recovering.”[558] A
reconstituted USIA should have the new express mission of supporting democratic governance, rule of law,
human rights, and open markets, and exposing adversarial and authoritarian regimes, such as China, Russia,
Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and others.[559]

Eliminate the Inter-American Foundation, the Federal Contribution to the Inter-American Development
Bank, the Asia Foundation, the Federal Contribution to the Asian Development Bank, the United States
African Development Foundation, and Contribution to the African Development Bank - These programs
and contributions represent auto-pilot foreign aid and are duplicative of other State Department and USAID
activities. In FY 2023 the federal government spent $384 million on these programs.

Withhold Funding for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - The Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was founded to “promote policies that will improve the
economic and social well-being of people around the world.”[560] Unfortunately, the OECD has become a
forum to push left-wing policies such as value added taxes, the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS)
project and the massively harmful global minimum tax.[561] U.S. taxpayer funds should not go to an
organization that works against their interests.

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies:

Eliminate Partisan Funding in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – While the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act was sold as an investment in roads and bridges, in reality it poured billions of
dollars into left-wing priorities, including funding for a National Electric Vehicle Formula grant program to
subsidize cars purchased by wealthy Americans,[562] funding for low-emission and expensive school buses
and ferries,[563] subsidies for expensive and unreliable green energy supply chains,[564] and taxpayer subsidies
to fix “racist roads.”[565] The RSC Budget would repeal all non-infrastructure and broadband provisions of the
IIJA and implement a clean extension of the FAST Act.

Eliminate Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority - The federal government should not
be subsidizing the public transit system of one of the most affluent metropolitan areas in the U.S.
Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA), received $150 million in federal funding in FY 2023.

Eliminate Amtrak Operating Grants and Capital Grants - The federal government has subsidized the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation - better known as Amtrak - since it was created by Congress in
1970. The railroad service consistently loses money and leaves taxpayers to foot the bill.[566] Taxpayer
money should certainly not be used for this activity. Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize Amtrak, it
should be privatized. In FY 2023, the federal government spent $6.816 billion on Amtrak through National
Network Grants and Northeast Corridor Grants.

Eliminate the New Starts Transit Program - The New Starts Transit Program, sometimes called Capital

127
Investment Grants, provides billions in subsidies to local transit for capital improvements. These projects are
inefficient and fail to reduce congestion. Because this program subsidizes only new projects, it incentivizes
transit agencies to build expensive projects without regard to cost, putting taxpayers on the hook for
operating costs down the road and diverting funds from adequately maintaining existing roads and other
infrastructure. In FY 2023, the federal government spent $4.235 billion on this program.

Eliminate BUILD Grants - RAISE Grants, originally known as TIGER Grants when created by President
Obama, were enacted as part of Obama’s failed stimulus law. The program is particularly problematic
because projects are selected by the Administration, often for political purposes (Democrat districts received
69 percent of funding during the Obama Administration), and go towards projects more appropriately
funded by state or local governments.[567] GAO has found problems with the funding decisions made by the
Administration under this program.[568] In FY 2023, the federal government spent $1.5 billion on this
program.

Prohibit High-Speed Rail Funding - The failed 2009 stimulus law provided $8 billion for high-speed rail
projects. President Biden has made high-speed rail a focal point in his agenda. The RSC Budget opposes
Biden’s efforts to subsidize the development of high-speed rail.

128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
[1]
Sam Batkins, Meghan Milloy, “The Most Expensive Dodd-Frank Rule Adds to Law’s Burden,” American Action Forum,
November 10, 2015.
http://americanactionforum.org/research/the-most-expensive-dodd-frank-rule-adds-to-laws-burden.
[2]
Dan Goldbeck, “Tracking the Regulatory Record of Recent Administrations at the Halfway Point.”
[3]
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “House Votes to Overturn Flawed, Overreaching Biden
WOTUS Rule.” March 9, 2023. https://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=406191
[4]
Marlo Lewis Jr. and Patrick J. Michaels, “CEI Comments on Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Proposed Rule.” Competitive Enterprise Institute, September 27, 2021.
https://cei.org/regulatory_comments/cei-comments-on-revised-2023-and-later-model-year-light-duty-vehicle-greenho
use-gas-emissions-standards-proposed-rule/
[5]
“Landmark Decision: U.S. Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Authority Over Water on Private Land.” National Federation of
Independent Business, May 31, 2023.
https://www.nfib.com/content/analysis/environmental-regulations/landmark-decision-u-s-supreme-court-limits-epas-a
uthority-over-water-on-private-land/
[6]
Sam Batkins, “Administration’s Regulatory Freeze Halts $181 Billion in Pending Rules”, American Action Forum,
January 31, 2017,
https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/administrations-regulatory-freeze-halts-181-billion-pending-rules/.
[7]
Federal Register, Executive Order No. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” January 30,
2017,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/03/2017-02451/reducing-regulation-and-controlling-regulatory-c
osts.
[8]
Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” February 24, 2017,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-the-regulatory-reform-agenda.
[9]
“Power, Practices, Personnel: 100+ Commonsense Solutions to a Better Government.” Republican Study Committee,
https://rsc-hern.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/GEAR%20Report_Single%20Spread%20FIN
AL.pdf
[10]
Andrew M. Grossman, “Oversight of Litigation at EPA and FWS: Impacts on the U.S. Economy, States, Local
Communities and the Environment,” CATO Institute, August 3, 2015,
https://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/oversight-litigation-epa-fws-impacts-us-economy-states-local-communiti
es.
[11]
The White House, “Executive Order on Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Federal Regulation,”
January 20, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-revocation-of-certain-exe
cutive-orders-concerning-federal-regulation/.
[12]
Philip A. Wallach and Nicholas W. Zeppos, “How Powerful is the Congressional Review Act?” The Brookings
Institute, April 4, 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-powerful-is-the-congressional-review-act/.
[13]
Office of the President of the United States, “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and
Reorganization Recommendations,” Politico,
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000164-2324-dbdc-a96d-373e4e2a0000.
[14]
Republican Study Committee, “RSC Proposal Spurs Introduction of 7 Government Reform Bills,” press release,
August 17, 2020,
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/news/press-releases/rsc-proposal-spurs-introduction-7-government-reform-bills.
[15]
Katherine Ellen Foley, “Change to Covid vaccine formulation signals start of FDA pivot in immunization strategy.”
Politico, January 26, 2023.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/26/fda-advisers-annual-covid-immunizations-00079749
[16]
Clerk of the House of Representatives, “Roll Call 100 – Bill Number: H.R. 382.” January 31, 2023.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023100

136
[17]
Clerk of the House of Representatives, “Roll Call 104 – Bill Number: H.J. Res. 7.” February 1, 2023.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023104
[18]
Ryan A. Decker and John Haltiwanger, “Business entry and exit in the COVID-19 pandemic: A preliminary look at
official data.” FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve, May 6, 2022.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/business-entry-and-exit-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-prelimi
nary-look-at-official-data-20220506.html
[19]
National Assessment of Educational Progress, “Results from the NAEP 2022 Mathematics & Reading Assessments
at Grades 4 & 8 are here!” Accessed March 27, 2023. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
[20]
Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke, “A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the
Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality.” Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the
Study of Business Enterprise. January 2022.
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on
-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf
[21]
Congressman Jim Banks, H.Res.293, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/293?s=3&r=17
[22]
Clerk of the House of Representatives, “Roll Call 104 – Bill Number: H.J. Res. 7.” February 1, 2023.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023104
[23]
Clerk of the House of Representatives, “Roll Call 100 – Bill Number: H.R. 382.” January 31, 2023.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023100
[24]
Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D. “Why Are Feds Still Funding EcoHealth Alliance When Its COVID-19 Role Remains
Unresolved?” The Heritage Foundation, October 27, 2022.
https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/why-are-feds-still-funding-ecohealth-alliance-when-its-covid-19-
role
[25]
Eamon James and Scott Zamost, “Criminals have stolen nearly $100 billion in Covid relief funds, Secret Service
says.” CNBC, December 21, 2021.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/21/criminals-have-stolen-nearly-100-billion-in-covid-relief-funds-secret-service.html
[26]
NAM News Room, "Oil and Gas Companies Aren’t to Blame for Pump Prices.” National Association of Manufacturers,
March 18, 2022. https://www.nam.org/oil-and-gas-companies-arent-to-blame-for-pump-prices-17098/
[27]
Thomas Phippen, “Biden keeping his promise to ‘end fossil fuel’ increased gas prices, RSC memo shows.” Fox
Business, March 28, 2022.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-fossil-fuel-gas-prices-promise-republican-study-comittee-memo
[28]
Clerk of the House of Representatives, “Roll Call 243 | Bill Number: H. R. 3746.” May 31, 2023.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023243
[29]
Clerk of the House of Representatives, “Roll Call 182 | Bill Number: H.R. 1.” March 30, 2023.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023182
[30]
Parker Sheppard, Richard Stern and Kevin Dayaratna, “Policies in the Lower Energy Costs Act Will Lower Energy
Costs and Increase GDP.” The Heritage Foundation, March 30, 2023.
https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/report/policies-the-lower-energy-costs-act-will-lower-energy-costs-and-i
ncrease
[31]
“SEC Proposes to Enhance Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies About ESG
Investment Practices.” Securities and Exchange Commission, May 25, 2022.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-92
[32]
George Lobsenz and Amena Saiyid, “Biden Moves Past Clean Power Plan, With an Eye to a Clean Electricity
Standard,” IHS Markit, February 18, 2021,
https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/biden-moves-past-clean-power-plan-with-an-eye-to-a-clean-elect.html.
[33]
David Kreutzer, “Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the U.S. Economy,” The Heritage Foundation, November 17, 2014,
https://www.heritage.org/testimony/impacts-carbon-taxes-the-us-economy.

137
[34]
Mike Palicz, “ATR Releases Coalition Letter Opposing Any Carbon Tax,” Americans for Tax Reform, March 16, 2021,
https://www.atr.org/atr-releases-coalition-letter-opposing-any-carbon-tax.
[35]
Institute for Energy Research, “CBO Analyzes RFS: Expect Higher Gasoline and Diesel Prices,” July 2, 2014,
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/cbo-analyzes-rfs-expect-higher-gasoline-diesel-prices/.
[36]
CEI, “Free to Prosper, A Pro-Growth Agenda for the 116th Congress: Energy and Environment,” March 17, 2021,
https://www.cagw.org/reporting/licensing-barriers.
[37]
Frances Floresca and Thomas Schatz, “Reducing Licenzing Barriers Will Get Millions Back to Work,” Citizens Against
Government Waste, 2020, https://www.cagw.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Issue_Brief_Regulatory_Reform.pdf.
[38]
James Pethokoukis, “The terrible Economic Burden of Occupational Licensing,” American Enterprise Institute, April
21, 2014, https://www.aei.org/publication/the-terrible-economic-burden-of-occupational-licensing/.
[39]
Melissa S. Kearney, Brad Hershbein and David Boddy, “Nearly 30 Percent of Workers in the U.S. Need a License to
Perform Their Job: It Is Time to Examine Occupational Licensing Practices,” Brookings Institution, January 27, 2015,
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2015/01/26-time-to-examine-occupational-licensing-practices-kearne
y-hershbein-boddy.
[40]
Institute for Justice, “At What Co$t,” November 2018,
https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Licensure_Report_WEB.pdf#page=7.

[42]
Kishan, Saijel, “Wall Street Banks Face New Pressure to Cut Fossil-Fuel Financing” Bloomberg News, December 16,
2021.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-16/wall-street-banks-face-new-pressure-to-cut-fossil-fuel-financi
ng#:~:text=Banks%20have%20organized%20about%20%24555,to%20data%20compiled%20by%20Bloomberg.
[43]
Jeb Hensarling, “A Politicized Fed Endangers the Economy.” Wall Street Journal, January 17, 2022,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-politicized-fed-endangers-economy-monetary-federal-reserve-powell-balance-sheet-c
limate-stress-test-social-justice-11642448983
[44]
Howard Schneider and Ann Saphir, “Fed wants climate risk analysis from 6 largest U.S. banks by July 31.” Reuters,
January 17, 2023.
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/fed-wants-climate-risk-analysis-6-largest-us-banks-by-july-3
1-2023-01-17/
[45]
“Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising shareholder Rights.” Federal Register,
December 1, 2022.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/01/2022-25783/prudence-and-loyalty-in-selecting-plan-investm
ents-and-exercising-shareholder-rights
[46]
NSSF Denounces U.S. Senate Confirmation of Operation Choke Point Architect to FDIC.” The National Shooting
Sports Foundation, December 20, 2022.
https://www.nssf.org/articles/nssf-denounces-u-s-senate-confirmation-of-operation-choke-point-architect-to-fdic/
[47]
“Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet: Recent Balance Sheet Trends.” The Federal Reserve, Accessed
March 28, 2023. https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttrends.htm
[48]
“Heritage Expert: Inflation, Banking Crisis Being Fueled By Runaway Federal Budget.” Heritage Foundation, March
14, 2023.
https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-expert-inflation-banking-crisis-being-fueled-runaway-federal-budget
[49]
Scott Johnson, Powerline “CRISIS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.” January 13, 2014,
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/crisis-of-the-administrative-state.php
[50]
Executive Order 14030, 86 FR 27967,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/25/2021-11168/climate-related-financial-risk
[51]
The White House, “Historical Tables, Table 1.1.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/
[52]
Spencer Woo“Cronyism and the Tax Code,” NTU, November 21, 2016,
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/cronyism-and-the-tax-code.

138
[53]
William L. Watts, “Friedman: Consumption tax best, but unlikely,” Market Watch, March 31, 2015,
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/friedman-consumption-tax-best-but-unlikely; Curtis Dubay “A Flat Consumption
Tax Would Be Fair and Efficient,” The Heritage Foundation, November 16, 2015,
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/flat-consumption-tax-would-be-fair-and-efficient; David A. Weisbach and
Joseph Bankman, “The Superiority of an Ideal Consumption Tax over an Ideal Income Tax,” University of Chicago Law
School, 2006, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3035&context=journal_articles.
[54]
Catherine Thorbecke, “Unemployment rate falls to its lowest level in 50 years,” ABC News, October 4, 2019,
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/unemployment-rate-falls-lowest-level-50-years/story?id=66058946; Jeffry Bartash,
“At a 10-year High, Wage Growth for American Workers Likely to Keep Accelerating,” Market Watch, March 8, 2019,
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/at-a-10-year-high-wage-growth-for-american-workers-likely-to-keep-acceleratin
g-2019-03-08.
[55]
Congressional Budget Office memorandum to Senate Finance Committee, August 17, 2021.
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/irs_enforcement_jct_analysis.pdf
[56]
“Tax Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” Congressional Research Service, August 10, 2022.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47202#page=4
[57]
“Estimated Budget Effects of the Revenue Provisions of Title I – Committee on Finance, of an amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 5376, the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” Joint committee on Taxation, July 28, 2022.
https://files.constantcontact.com/737f8b41801/68496922-3930-4385-8540-200477fe1b11.pdf#page=3
[58]
Mike Palicz, “List of Tax Hikes in Democrat Reconciliation Bill” Americans for Tax Reform, August 8, 2022.
https://www.atr.org/list-of-tax-hikes-in-democrat-reconciliation-bill/
[59]
“Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” Congressional Budget Office,
August 5, 2022. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-08/hr5376_IR_Act_8-3-22.pdf#page=9
[60]
“JCT Confirms: U.S. Manufacturers Would be Hardest Hit by Democrats’ Book Minimum Tax.” United States Senate
Committee on finance, July 28, 2022.
https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/jct-confirms-us-manufacturers-would-be-hardest-hit-by-dem
ocrats-book-minimum-tax#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20new%20JCT,does%20not%20close%20tax%20loopholes
.
[61]
Cody Kallen, William McBride, Garrett Watson. “Minimum Book Tax: Flawed Revenue Source, Penalizes Pro-Growth
Cost Recovery.” Tax Foundation, August 5, 2022.
https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act-accelerated-depreciation/
[62]
Cody Kallen, Garrett Watson, “Who Gets Hit by the Inflation Reduction Act Book Minimum Tax?” Tax Foundation,
August 12, 2022. https://taxfoundation.org/book-minimum-tax-analysis/
[63]
Congressional Budget Office, “CBO’s Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act of
2023.” April 25, 2023.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-04/59102-Arrington-Letter_LSG%20Act_4-25-2023.pdf
[64]
Alex Durante, Cody Kallen, Huaqun Li, William McBride, and Garret Watson, “Details & Analysis of the Inflation
Reduction Act Tax Provisions.” Tax Foundation, August 12, 2022. https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act/
[67]
Estimates based on modeling from the Tax Foundation.
[68]
Joint Committee on Taxation, “Economic Growth and Tax Policy (JCX-47-15),” February 20, 2015,
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4736.
[69]
Congressional Budget Office, “Budgetary Outcomes Under Alternative Assumptions About Spending and
Revenues.” May 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/59154-Budgetary-Outcomes.pdf#page=5
[70]
Estimates based on modeling from the Tax Foundation.
[71]
Ibid.
[72]
Ibid.
[73]
Scott A. Hodge, “An Open Letter to Chairman Peter Roskam on Full Expensing,” Tax Foundation, July 18, 2017,
https://taxfoundation.org/open-letter-chairman-peter-roskam-full-expensing/.

139
[74]
Jason J. Fichtner and Adam N. Michel, “Options for Corporate Capital Cost Recovery: Tax Rates and Depreciation,”
Mercatus Center, January 2015, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Fichtner-Corporate-Capital-Cost.pdf.
[75]
Erica York, “Expensing Provisions Should Not Favor Physical Over Human Capital,” Tax Foundation, December 17,
2019, https://taxfoundation.org/expensing-provisions-not-favor-physical-human-capital/.
[76]
Estimates based on modeling from the Tax Foundation.
[77]
Adam Michel, “Universal Savings Accounts Can Help All Americans Build Savings,” The Heritage Foundation,
December 4, 2018,
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/universal-savings-accounts-can-help-all-americans-build-savings.
[78]
Matt Phillips, “Inflation surges to 8.5%, highest in over 40 years.” Axios, April 12, 2022.
https://www.axios.com/2022/04/12/inflation-surges-march
[79]
A. Hendrie, “Senator Cruz Leads Letter Urging Trump Admin to Index Capital Gains Taxes to Inflation,” Americans for
Tax Reform, July 29, 2019,
https://www.atr.org/senator-cruz-leads-letter-urging-trump-admin-index-capital-gains-taxes-inflation?amp.
[80]
“151 Organizations Sign Coalition Letter Supporting Death Tax Repeal Act,” Family Business Coalition, February 19,
2019,
http://www.familybusinesscoalition.org/2019/02/19/151-organizations-sign-coalition-letter-supporting-death-tax-repe
al-act/.
[81]
Scott Eastman, “New IRS Data Reiterates Shortcomings of the Estate Tax,” Tax Foundation, October 18, 2018,
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data-reiterates-shortcomings-estate-tax/.
[82]
Scott Greenberg, “Tax Reform Isn’t Done,” Tax Foundation, March 8, 2018,
https://taxfoundation.org/tax-reform-isnt-done/.
[83]
Estimates based on modeling from the Tax Foundation
[84]
Nicole Kaeding, “Net Operating Losses Aren’t Handouts,” National Taxpayers Union Foundation, April 14, 2020,
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/net-operating-losses-arent-handouts.
[85]
Internal Revenue Service, “Understanding Your Form-1099-K.” Accessed May 18, 2023.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/understanding-your-form-1099-k
[86]
Veronique de Rugy and Adam N. Michel, “A Review of Selected Corporate Tax Privileges,” Mercatus Center, October
2016, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-de-rugy-corporate-tax-privileges-v1.pdf.
[87]
“Two-Thirds of the “One Percent” Get a Tax Cut Under Build Back Better, Due to SALT Relief.” Committee for a
Responsible Federal Budget, December 10, 2021,
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/two-thirds-one-percent-get-tax-cut-under-build-back-better-due-salt-relief
[88]
Heritage Foundation FY 2023 Budget Blueprint, “Repeal the State and Local Tax Deduction.” The Heritage
Foundation, Accessed April 6, 2023. https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/3.revenue.113.html
RSC Score for FY2024-FY2033 with FY2033 amounts inflated.
[89]
Mark P. Mills, “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking.” The Manhattan Institute, March 2019.
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf
[90]
Clean coal Credit, Private activity bond interest exclusion, Exclusion from interest income from state and local
government bonds, Lifetime Learning Credit, American Opportunity Credit, Student loan interest payments deduction
(phase-out), Income exclusions for employee meals exclusion, lodging, and transportation benefits, Income exclusion
for employee achievements awards, Income exclusion for employer-provided gym benefits deduction, Orphan Drug
Credit
[91]
Amir El-Sibaie, “Marriage Penalties and Bonuses under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Tax Foundation, February 14,
2018, https://taxfoundation.org/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-marriage-penalty-marriage-bonus/.
[92]
Will Kenton, “Donor-Advised Fund,” Investopedia, Accessed on April 20, 2022,
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/donoradvisedfund.asp.
[93]
Robert Rector and Jamie Hall, “Largest Welfare Increase in U.S. History will boost Government Support to $76,400
per Poor Family,” Heritage Foundation, November 8,

140
2021,https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/largest-welfare-increase-us-history-will-boost-government-support-76
400-poor-family .
[94]
Karen E. Lynch , Gene Falk, Jessica Tollestrup, Conor F. Boyle, and Patrick A. Landers “Federal Spending on Benefits
and Services for People with Low Income: FY2008-FY2020 ” Congressional Research Service, December 8, 2021.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46986#:~:text=5%20The%20federal%20government%20spent,inflatio
n%20(1%25)%20during%20FY2020 . ..
[95]
Ibid.
[96]
Robert Rector and Jamie Hall, “Largest Welfare Increase in U.S. History Will Boost Government Support to $76,400
per Poor Family.” Heritage Foundation, November 8, 2021,
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/largest-welfare-increase-us-history-will-boost-government-support-76400-p
oor-family
[97]
Republican Study Committee, “Reclaiming the American Dream,”
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/policy-solutions/american-worker-task-force-report
[98]
Census Bureau, “Historical Poverty Tables: People and Families - 1959 to 2021” and “Table 4. Poverty Status of
Families by Type of Family, Presence of Related Children, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2021,” Accessed March 7,
2023, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html.
[99]
Centers for Disease Control, “Unmarried Childbearing” Accessed March 7, 2023,
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm
[100]
“Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: the Rise in Unwed Childbearing.” Joint Economic Committee, December
2017. https://www.lee.senate.gov/services/files/3a6e738b-305b-4553-b03b-3c71382f102c
[101]
W. Bradford Wilcox, Joseph Price, and Angela Rachidi, “Marriage Penalized: Does Social-Welfare Policy Affect
Family Formation?” American Enterprise Institute, 2016,
https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/marriage-penalty-hep-2016.pdf#page=3.
[102]
Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D. “Purging the Marriage Penalty,” The Heritage Foundation, February 14, 2017,
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/purging-the-marriage-penalty.
[103]
Angela Rachidi, “New CRS report sheds light on need-tested government programs,” American Enterprise Institute,
January 21, 2016, https://www.aei.org/publication/new-crs-report-sheds-light-on-need-tested-government-programs/.
[104]
Arthur Brooks, The Conservative Heart (New York, NY: Harper Collins), 2015, p. 96.
[105]
Arthur Brooks, The Conservative Heart, pg. 32.
[106]
U.S. Census Bureau, “Historical Poverty Tables: People and Families - 1959 to 2021” and “Table 25. Work
Experience and Poverty Status for People 16 Years Old and Over.” Accessed March 7, 2023,.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html
[107]
Jonathan Ingram, “Report: The Power of Work – How Kansas’ Welfare Reform is Lifting Americans Out of Poverty”,
Foundation for Government Accountability, February 16, 2016.
http://thefga.org/research/report-the-power-of-work-how-kansas-welfare-reform-is-lifting-americans-out-of-poverty/.
[108]
Robert Rector, Rachel Sheffield, and Kevin D. Dayaratna, “Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent
Caseload by 80 Percent,” The Heritage Foundation, February 8, 2016,
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/maine-food-stamp-work-requirement-cuts-non-parent-caseload-80-percent.
[109]
Foundation for Government Accountability, “Food Stamp Work Requirements,” Accessed April 11, 2022,
https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Food-Stamp-Work-Requirements-One-Pager.pdf.
[110]
Harry J. Holzer, R. Glenn Hubbard & Michael R. Strain, “Did Pandemic Unemployment Benefits Reduce
Employment? Evidence from Early State-Level Expirations in June 2021.” National Bureau of Economic Research,
December 2021. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29575
[111]
Matt Weidinger, “What are the New TANF Work Requirements in the Fiscal Responsibility Act?” American
Enterprise Institute, May 30, 2023.
https://www.aei.org/opportunity-social-mobility/what-are-the-new-tanf-work-requirements-in-the-fiscal-responsibility
-act/

141
[112]
Congressional Research Service, “The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to
Frequently Asked Question.” Updated March 31, 2022. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf
[113]
Gene Falk, “The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF
Financing and Federal Requirements,” Congressional Research Service, December 14, 2017,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32748.pdf#page=20.
[114]
The MOE “requires states to contribute in the aggregate from their own funds at least $10.3 billion for benefits and
services to needy families with children.” See: Gene Falk, “The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: A Primer on TANF
Financing and Federal Requirements.”
[115]
House Committee on Ways and Means, “Rep. Brady, Sen. Daines Introduce Welfare Reform Legislation” March 14,
2019, https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/rep-brady-sen-daines-introduce-welfare-reform-legislation/.
[116]
Robert Abare “Ben Carson’s plan for “EnVision Centers” looks familiar and needs realistic expectations” Urban
Institute, March 19, 2018,
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/ben-carsons-plan-envision-centers-looks-familiar-and-needs-realistic-expectations.
[117]
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “EnVision Centers,” Accessed on May 11, 2021,
https://www.hud.gov/envisioncenters
[118]
Alliance for Opportunity, “KEEPING VULNERABLE AMERICANS ON TRACK.” Accessed April 19, 2022.
https://allianceforopportunity.com/focus/safety-nets/#promote-financial-independence,
[119]
See: 7 USC 2015(o)(2) (as amended by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, PL 115-334, December 20, 2018,
132 Stat. 4490).
[120]
Ibid.
[121]
Congressional Budget Office, “The Cost of Executive Actions Taken by the Biden Administration.” June 23, 2022.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/58231-Smith.pdf
[122]
Jamie Hall, “Geographic-Area Waivers Undermine Food Stamp Work Requirements,” The Heritage Foundation, July
19, 2018
https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/geographic-area-waivers-undermine-food-stamp-work-requirements.
[124]
“Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate `by age, race, sex, and ethnicity.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed
March 28, 2023. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm
[125]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Final Rule: SNAP Requirements for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents,”
December 5, 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-120419.
[126]
Office of Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), “Rep. Hern sends letter of support to Sec. Perdue regarding proposed SNAP
Rule,” February 19, 2019, https://hern.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=38.
[127]
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits,” Accessed on April 18,
2021, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits.
[128]
Foundation for Government Accountability, “About Asset Tests,” Accessed April 18, 2022,
https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Asset-Testing-FAQ.pdf.
[129]
Jonathan Ingram and Nic Horton, “Closing the Door to Food Stamp Fraud: How ending broad-based categorical
eligibility can protect the truly needy.” Foundation for Government Accountability, December 4, 2018.
https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/BBCE-Its-Time-To-Close-Food-Stamp-Loopholes.pdf
[130]
Heritage Foundation 2022 Budget Blueprint, “Eliminate the “Heat and Eat” Loophole in Food Stamps.” The Heritage
Foundation, Accessed June 6, 2022. https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/2.600.177.html
[131]
Government Accountability Office, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Actions Needed to Better Measure
and Address Retailer Trafficking” December 14, 2018 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-167.
[132]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “The Extent of Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program: 2015-2017”, September 3, 2021.
https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/Trafficking2015-2017-3.pdf

142
[133]
Brenna Smith, “One woman’s quest for justice after almost $3,000 of benefits were stolen.” The Baltimore Banner,
September 9, 2022.
https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/criminal-justice/one-womans-quest-for-justice-after-almost-3000-of-
benefits-were-stolen-LHIKMQZSNJBULC7LXCEIE264OA/
[134]
Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Housing Assistance for Low-Income Households”, September 9, 2015.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50782.
[135]
Peter G. Peterson Foundation, July 29, 2020, “HOW DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT HOUSING FOR
LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS?”,
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/how-does-the-federal-government-support-housing-for-low-income-households
#:~:text=The%20federal%20government%20spent%20%2451,assistance%20to%20low%2Dincome%20households.
[136]
Robert Rector, Heritage Foundation, “How Welfare Undermines Marriage and What to Do About It”, November 17,
2014. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/11/how-welfare-undermines-marriage-and-what-to-do-about-it
[137]
Republican Study Committee, “Reclaiming the American Dream”, Accessed April 30, 2022.
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/%5bFINAL%5d%20Reclaiming%20the%20
American%20Dream%20.pdf#page=43
[138]
Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Housing Assistance for Low-Income Households”, September 9, 2015.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50782.
[139]
CNS News, By Zachary Leshin, December 1, 2015, “Rep. Byrne Wants to End Abuse of Public Housing by Tenants
Above Poverty Line”,
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/zachary-leshin/rep-byrne-bill-would-combat-abuse-public-housing-tenants-ab
ove-poverty
[140]
Scott Winship, e21 at the Manhattan Institute, “A Response to Michael Hiltzik on Reforming SSI”, May 30, 2014.
http://www.economics21.org/commentary/response-michael-hiltzik-reforming-ssi.
[141]
Lars Larson, “Oregon Gets $5 Million In 'Bonuses' For Expanding And Servicing The Welfare State”, CNSnews,
September 29, 2011.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/lars-larson/oregon-gets-5-million-bonuses-expanding-and-servicing-welfare-state.
[142]
The National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food
Service Program and Special Milk Program.
[143]
For purposes of this reform, this includes households with income at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty
level.
[144]
Chris Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, “Food Subsidies”, CATO Institute, May 26, 2016.
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/food-subsidies.
[145]
Department of the Treasury, “PaymentAccuracy.gov.” Accessed March 14, 2023.
https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/Q4/Food%20and%20Nutrition%20Service%20(FNS)%20School%20Br
eakfast%20Program%20(SBP)%20Payments%20Integrity%20Scorecard%20FY%202022%20Q4.pdf
[146]
“Annual Improper Payments Datasets”. Payment Accuracy. Accessed March 14, 2023.
https://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/payment-accuracy-the-numbers/ .
[147]
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General, Testimony of Larry D. Turner before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, March 17, 2022,
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Turner-2022-03-17-REVISED.pdf
[148]
Ibid.
[149]
Stephen Dinan, “House GOP to investigate COVID unemployment cash going to China, Russia.” The Washington
Times, December 6, 2021.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/6/house-gop-investigate-covid-unemployment-cash-goin/
[150]
“Comer Opens Hearing Investigating Billions Lost to Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Pandemic Programs.” Committee
on Oversight and Accountability, February 1, 2023.

143
https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-opens-hearing-investigating-billions-lost-to-waste-fraud-and-abuse-in-pan
demic-programs/
[151]
Jonathan Ingram, “Stop the Scam How to Prevent Welfare Fraud in Your State”, Foundation for Government
Accountability, April 2, 2015. https://thefga.org/research/stop-the-scam-how-to-prevent-welfare-fraud-in-your-state/.
[152]
Erica Werner, July 25, 2020, “Treasury sent more than 1 million coronavirus stimulus payments to dead people,
congressional watchdog finds”, Washington Post, June 25, 2020.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/06/25/irs-stimulus-checks-dead-people-gao/
[153]
Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler, “ 63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs.” Center for
Immigration Studies. November 18, 2018, https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs
[154]
Department of Defense, “2018 National Defense Strategy for the United States of America.” 2018
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf.
[155]
The White House, “National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017.”
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
[156]
The Republican Study Committee “Strengthening America & Countering Global Threats”
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/%5BFINAL%5D%20NSTF%20Report.pdf?
utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=mobile
[157]
The Washington Examiner, by Tim Mak, “Former top military officer sees national debt as biggest threat to country”,
January 21, 2014.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-top-military-officer-sees-national-debt-as-biggest-threat-to-country/arti
cle/2542594.
[158]
The Wall Street Journal, by Alastair Galen, “China Is Accelerating Its Nuclear Buildup Over Rising Fears of U.S.
Conflict. April 9, 2022.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-is-accelerating-its-nuclear-buildup-over-rising-fears-of-u-s-conflict-11649509201
[159]
The New York Times, by Helene Cooper, “China Could Have 1,000 Nuclear Warheads by 2030, Pentagon Says”
November 3, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/us/politics/china-military-nuclear.html
[160]
USNI News. “China Undergoing ‘Build-Up in Every Warfare Area,’ Says ONI Commander,” January 17, 2023.
https://news.usni.org/2023/01/16/china-undergoing-build-up-in-every-warfare-area-says-oni-commander.
[161]
Reuters, by Tony Monroe, Andrew Osborn, and Humeyra Pamuk, “China, Russia partner up against West at
Olympics summit.” February 4, 2022.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-china-tell-nato-stop-expansion-moscow-backs-beijing-taiwan-2022-02-
04/
[162]
Voice of America. “Before Xi Visit, Russia Says It Held Naval Drills With China and Iran in Arabian Sea,” March 18,
2023.
https://www.voanews.com/a/before-xi-visit-russia-says-it-held-naval-drills-with-china-and-iran-in-arabian-sea/70110
72.html.
[163]
AP NEWS. “US Officials Point to Russia Using Iranian Drones in Ukraine,” February 14, 2023.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-iran-politics-defense-intelligence-agency-drones-fecf53c964f09e24bd9a187
715ac8598.
[164]
Bertrand, Natasha. “Russia Has Been Sending Some US-Provided Weapons Captured in Ukraine to Iran, Sources
Say | CNN Politics.” CNN, March 10, 2023.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/politics/russia-iran-ukraine-weapons/index.html.
[165]
Bloomberg.com. “US Sanctions Chinese Companies Supplying Iranian Maker of Drones Sold to Russia.” March 9,
2023.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/us-sanctions-chinese-companies-supplying-iranian-drone-mak
er.
[166]
Egozi, Arie. “Improved Saudi-Iran Relationship Has Israel Nervous — about Iran, and about China.” Breaking
Defense (blog), March 20, 2023.

144
https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/2023/03/improved-saudi-iran-relationship-has-israel-nervous-about-i
ran-and-about-china/.
[167]
Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Joint Concept for Competing.” February 10 2023.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23698400/20230213-joint-concept-for-competing-signed.pdf
[168]
AP NEWS. “China Renews Threat against Taiwan as Island Holds Drills,” January 11, 2023.
https://apnews.com/article/taiwan-politics-china-government-germany-88cd9b9fcead9d5dba0e8ea364f4dac6.
[169]
“China ‘Most Consequential Threat’ to U.S. National Security, Top Intelligence Official Says,” March 8, 2023.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-worldwide-threats-hearing/.
[170]
NBC News. “Chinese Balloon Got Intel from U.S. Military Sites, despite Efforts to Block It,” April 3, 2023.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-spy-balloon-collected-intelligence-us-military-bases-rcna77
155.
[171]
China Power, “What does China Spend on it’s Military?” Accessed June 6, 2022,
https://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/
[172]
http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/statistics/202301/23/content_WS63ce3db8c6d0a757729e5fe5.html
[173]
CNN Politics, by Chandelis Duster, “Top military leader says China's hypersonic missile test 'went around the
world'” November 18, 2021.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/politics/john-hyten-china-hypersonic-weapons-test/index.html
[174]
Senate Armed Services Committee, “Testimony on United States Strategic Command and United States Space
Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2023 and the future years defense program.”
March 8, 2022. https://www.spacecom.mil/Testimony/SASC-Hearing-Transcript/
[175]
Johns Hopkins University and Medicine, , “Coronavirus Resource Center” Accessed April 12, 2022
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
[176]
War on the Rocks, by Bradley Bowman and Mark Montgomery, “Fully Fund the Guam Defense System.” July 29,
2021. https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/fully-fund-the-guam-defense-system/
[177]
France-Presse, Agence. “China’s Warplane Incursions into Taiwan Air Defence Zone Doubled in 2022.” The
Guardian, January 2, 2023, sec. World news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/02/chinas-warplane-incursions-into-taiwan-air-defence-zone-doubled-in
-2022.
[178]
Lee, Yimou. “Taiwan Reports China’s Largest Incursion yet to Air Defence Zone.” Reuters, December 26, 2022, sec.
China.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/taiwan-says-43-chinese-air-force-planes-crossed-taiwan-strait-median-line-202
2-12-26/.
[179]
Nippon.com, “Taiwan Under Siege: Behind China’s Gray Zone Operations.” March 24, 2022.
https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00787/
[180]
U.S. News and World Report, by Paul D. Shinkman, “Chinese Military at or Near Ability to Invade Taiwan, U.S.
Agency Concludes.” November 17, 2021.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2021-11-17/chinese-military-at-or-near-ability-to-invade-taiwan
-us-agency-concludes
[181]
U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, “2021 Report to Congress of the U.S. China Economic and
Security Reform Commission.” November 2021,
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2021_Annual_Report_to_Congress.pdf
[182]
AP NEWS. “CIA Chief: China Has Some Doubt on Ability to Invade Taiwan,” February 26, 2023.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-taiwan-politics-united-states-government-eaf869eb617c6c356b2708607ed
15759.
[183]
The Wall Street Journal, by Robert C. O’Brien and Alexander B. Gray, “How to Deter China From Invading Taiwan.”
September 15, 2021.

145
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-invade-taiwan-strait-pla-missile-mines-counterinsurgency-biden-xi-tsai-ing-wen-1
1631721031
[184]
U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, “2021 Report to Congress of the U.S. China Economic and
Security Reform Commission.” November 2021.
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2021_Comprehensive_List_of_Recommendations.pdf#page=10
[185]
Letter from Congressman Jim Banks to Customs and Border Patrol. September 1, 20222.
https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/signal-2022-09-01-223031.pdf
[186]
Congressman Ken Buck. “Buck, Gooden, Banks, Torres Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Counter Genocide in Xinjiang,”
June 10, 2022.
http://buck.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/buck-gooden-banks-torres-introduce-bipartisan-bill-counter-genoci
de.
[187]
Republican Study Committee. “RSC Members Introduce Bills to Hold Communist China Accountable for Genocide,”
June 9, 2022.
https://rsc-hern.house.gov/news/press-releases/rsc-members-introduce-bills-hold-communist-china-accountable-geno
cide.
[188]
U.S. Representative Jack Bergman. “Bergman Introduces Bill to Protect Personal Data from China,” July 30, 2021.
https://bergman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=916.
[189]
H.R. 1153. 118th Congress https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1153
[190]
U.S. Congressman Jim Banks. “Rep. Jim Banks Introduces Truth in Testimony Rule,” November 23, 2021.
https://banks.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1962.
[191]
U.S. Congressman Mike Johnson. “Johnson Introduces No Communist Countries Participating in Lobbying Act,” May
7, 2021. https://mikejohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=864.
[192]
The Economist. “How Many Russians Have Been Killed in Ukraine?” Accessed April 27, 2023.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/03/08/how-many-russians-have-been-killed-in-ukraine. and Cooper,
Helene, Eric Schmitt, and Thomas Gibbons-Neff. “Soaring Death Toll Gives Grim Insight Into Russian Tactics.” The New
York Times, February 2, 2023, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/us/politics/ukraine-russia-casualties.html.
[193]
Axe, David. “The Russians Have Lost Nearly 300 Aircraft Over Ukraine—Mostly Drones.” Forbes. Accessed April 27,
2023.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/07/the-russians-have-lost-nearly-300-aircraft-over-ukraine-mostly-dr
ones/. and Fidler, Stephen. “Russia Likely Lost More Than Half of Its Tanks in Ukraine, Estimates Show.” Wall Street
Journal, February 15, 2023, sec. World.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-likely-lost-more-than-half-of-its-tanks-in-ukraine-estimates-show-c23dabc2.
[194]
Bala, Sumathi. “Sanctions on Russian Crude Oil Have ‘failed Completely,’ Oil Analyst Says.” CNBC, February 3,
2023.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/03/sanctions-on-russian-crude-oil-have-failed-completely-oil-analyst-says.html.
[195]
Foreign Policy, by Jack Detsch, “White House Delays Moving Military Assistance to Ukraine.” December 16, 2021.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/16/us-ukraine-russia-military-support-congress-biden-delay-aid/
[196]
The Daily Signal. “Trump USAID Chief Explains Need for Oversight of US Billions for Ukraine,” February 28, 2023.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/02/28/too-important-to-screw-up-trump-usaid-chief-explains-need-for-oversight-o
f-us-billions-for-ukraine/.
[197]
USAID. Ukraine—Complex Emergency Fact Sheet #9 FY2023. February 24, 2023.
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/2023-02-24_USG_Ukraine_Complex_Emergency_Fact_Sheet_9.pdf
[198]
Air defense systems such as PATRIOT missile batteries, ATACMS long-range missile systems, cluster munitions
Bradley and Abrams tanks, MQ-1C Gray Eagle and MQ-9 Reaper drones and F-16 fighter aircraft are all examples of
such lethal aid that the RSC Budget would provide.
[199]
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats on

146
Russia’s INF Treaty Violation.” November 30, 2018.
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/speeches-interviews/item/1923-director-of-national-intelligence-daniel-coat
s-on-russia-s-inf-treaty-violation
[200]
U.S. Department of State, Key Topics- Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, “Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.” Accessed June 6, 2022. https://2017-2021.state.gov/inf/index.html
[201]
NBC News. “Iran Enriching Uranium to near Weapons-Grade Levels, Nuclear Watchdog Warns,” March 8, 2023.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-enriching-uranium-weapons-grade-nuclear-iaea-rcna72753.
[202]
NBC News. “U.S. Contractor Killed, Five Service Members Wounded in Syria Drone Strike,” March 25, 2023.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-contractor-killed-service-members-wounded-suicide-drone-syr
ia-rcna76453.
[203]
Rod, Marc. “‘No Movement’ on Iran Deal, ‘It’s Not on Our Agenda,’ Envoy Malley Says.” Jewish Insider, November 1,
2022. https://jewishinsider.com/2022/11/rob-malley-iran-nuclear-talks-protests-negotiations/.
[204]
, U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesperson, “Designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”
April 8, 2019. https://2017-2021.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/index.html
[205]
Reuters, by Arshad Mohammed and Parisa Hafezi, “Analysis: Politics, not substance, seen guiding U.S. and Iran on
terror listing.” April 11, 2022.
https://www.reuters.com/world/politics-not-substance-seen-guiding-us-iran-terror-listing-2022-04-11/
[206]
Rep. August Pfluger, “Pfluger Introduces Bill to Train Israeli Pilots in Necessary Aircraft to Defend Israel from Iran.”
https://pfluger.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=786
[207]
McCORMACK, KATHY. “US Judge Rules That Family Can Proceed with Lawsuit Alleging Torture by Lebanon.”
Accessed April 27, 2023.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-judge-rules-that-family-can-proceed-with-lawsuit-alleging-torture-by-lebanon/.
[208]
Beirut, U. S. Embassy. “Ambassador Dorothy C. Shea Remarks for LAF-ISF Livelihood Support Program Rollout
Ceremony.” U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, January 25, 2023.
https://lb.usembassy.gov/ambassador-shea-remarks-laf-isf-livelihood-support/.
[209]
Atlantic Council, by Emily Burchfield, “The Dangers of U.S. Assistance to the U.N. Rewarding Assad.” March 8, 2018.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/the-danger-of-us-assistance-to-the-un-rewarding-assad/
[210]
Lister, Charles. “Syria’s Earthquake Victims Are Trapped by Assad.” Foreign Policy (blog), February 7, 2023.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/07/syria-earthquake-aid-assad/.

[212]
Daly, Max. “Is the Syrian Regime the World’s Biggest Drug Dealer?” Vice (blog), December 14, 2022.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7v8k8/syria-captagon-pills-drug-trade.
[213]
U.S. Congressman French Hill. “RELEASE: Rep. French Hill Leads Letter to State Department on Syria’s Narcotics
Trade,” July 19, 2022. https://hill.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=8999.
[214]
The Hill, by Rebeccas Kheel, “Billions in US weaponry seized by Taliban.” August 19, 2021.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/568493-billions-in-us-weaponry-seized-by-taliban/
[215]
The New York Times, by Julian E. Barnes, “Al Qaeda could rebuild in Afghanistan in a year or two, U.S. officials say.”
September 14, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/14/us/politics/al-qaeda-afghanistan.html
[216]
Vandenberg Coalition, “Afghanistan Report.” March 2022.
https://vandenbergcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Vandenberg-Coalition-Afghanistan-Report.pdf
[217]
Sang-Hun, Choe. “North Korea Launches Missile as Japan Issues Brief Evacuation Alarm.” The New York Times,
April 13, 2023, sec. World. https://www.nytimes.com/article/north-korea-missile-launch.html.
[218]
Ibid.
[219]
Smith, Josh, and Soo-Hyang Choi. “North Korea Launches ICBM Ahead of South Korea-Japan Summit.” Reuters,
March 17, 2023, sec. Asia Pacific.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/nkorea-fires-ballistic-missile-skorea-2023-03-15/. and France-Presse,
Agence. “North Korea Escalates Tensions with Fresh Ballistic Missile Tests.” The Guardian, March 14, 2023, sec. World

147
news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/14/north-korea-escalates-tensions-with-fresh-ballistic-missile-tests.
[220]
“US, South Korea Hold Drills as North Sub Test-Fires Missiles.” ABC News. Accessed April 27, 2023.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-korea-drills-begin-after-korea-submarine-missile-97812764.
[221]
Mitchell, Ellen. “Navy Unveils Nearly 60 Recommendations to Counter Racism, Improve Diversity.” Text. The Hill
(blog), February 3, 2021.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/537091-navy-unveils-nearly-60-recommendations-to-counter-racism-improve-divers
ity/.
[222]
Mehta, Aaron. “Climate Change Is Now a National Security Priority for the Pentagon.” Defense News, March 17,
2021.
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2021/01/27/climate-change-is-now-a-national-security-priority-for-the-pent
agon/.
[223]
The Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, “Pentagon’s Latest Strategy: Promote Socialism To Combat China.”
February 15, 2022.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/pentagons-latest-strategy-promote-socialism-to-combat-china/
[224]
Kasperowicz, Peter. “Air Force Goes on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Hiring Spree: Top Job Pays up to $183,500.”
Text.Article. Fox News, March 14, 2023.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/air-force-diversity-equity-inclusion-hiring-spree-top-job.
[225]
Grossman, Hannah. “Pentagon Diversity Chief Receives No Disciplinary Action after Probe into Anti-White Posts.”
Text.Article. Fox News, March 23, 2023.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/pentagon-diversity-chief-receives-no-disciplinary-action-after-probe-anti-white-post
s.
[226]
Critical Race Training in Education. “United States Naval Academy,” July 24, 2022.
https://criticalrace.org/service-academies/united-states-naval-academy/.and Wong, Kristina. “Navy Chief Omits Critical
Race Theory Books from Updated Reading List.” Breitbart, May 9, 2022.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/09/navy-chief-omits-critical-race-theory-books-from-updated-reading-list/.
[227]
Losey, Stephen. “The Military Is Resuming the Diversity Training That Trump Banned.” Military.com, March 8, 2021.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/08/military-resuming-diversity-training-trump-banned.html.l
[228]
Representative Jim Banks, Member of Congress, “Letter from Rep. Jim Banks to Adm. Michael Gilday.” February 26,
2021. https://www.scribd.com/document/496122359/2-26-2021-Letter-to-Admiral-Gilday-Kendi#from_embed
[229]
The Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, “Pentagon’s Latest Strategy: Promote Socialism To Combat China
(freebeacon.com).” February 15, 2022.
[230]
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) FY 2024 Budget Request Overview Book
/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2024/FY2024_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf#page=74
[231]
Ibid.
[232]
Kent, Simon. “U.S. Navy to Wargame Impact of ‘Climate Change’ on Future Conflicts.” Breitbart, June 24, 2022.
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2022/06/24/priorities-u-s-navy-to-wargame-impact-of-climate-change-on-fut
ure-conflicts/.
[233]
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) FY 2023 Meeting the Climate Challenge J-Book
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2023/FY2023_Meeting_the_Climate_Challenge_J-
book.pdf
[234]
Starr, Penny. “Army Has Plan to Deal with ‘Global Disruptions’ from ‘Climate Change’.” Breitbart, February 11,
2022.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/02/11/army-unveils-strategy-to-deal-with-global-disruptions-from-climate-c
hange/.

148
[235]
Peter G. Petersen Foundation, The Coalition for Fiscal and National Security, “Strength at Home and Abroad:
Ensuring America’s Fiscal and National Security”, May 10, 2016.
http://www.pgpf.org/pgpf-programs-and-projects/2016-cfns-statement.
[236]
Ibid
[237]
Walter, Chip. “It’s Time for New Incentives for Defense Primes to Invest in Startups.” Breaking Defense (blog),
January 12, 2023.
https://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/2023/01/its-time-for-new-incentives-for-defense-primes-to-invest-in
-startups/.
[238]
Federal News Network. “Navy to Break up Some Big Contracts to Increase Small Business Participation,” October
26, 2022.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/navy/2022/10/navy-to-break-up-some-big-contracts-to-increase-small-business-parti
cipation/.
[239]
Congressional Budget Office. Replacing Military Personnel in Support Positions With Civilian Employees. December
2015.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51012-Military_Civilian_Mix_OneCol.pdf
[240]
The Heritage Foundation. “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Policy Proposal.” Accessed April 27, 2023.
https://www.heritage.org/budget.
[241]
Congressional Research Service, “Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Funding for FY2022”, March
29, 2022. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10349 .
[242]
National Institutes of Health, “Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories
(RCDC)”, May 16, 2022. https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
[243]
CQ, by John M. Donnelly, “Funding Medical Research With Defense Dollars”, July 28, 2012.
http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004132596.html.
[244]
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, USA 20TH CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET HEARING, FEBRUARY 26, 2020,
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110584/witnesses/HHRG-116-AS00-Wstate-MilleyM-20200226.pdf#p
age=3
[245]
War on the Rocks. “What to Expect When You’re Expecting a National Defense Strategy,” September 27, 2021.
https://warontherocks.com/2021/09/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-a-national-defense-strategy/.
[246]
Department of Defense. 2020 DOD China Military Power Report.
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.P
DF
[247]
The Heritage Foundation. “Executive Summary of the 2023 Index of U.S. Military Strength.” Accessed April 27,
2023. https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/executive-summary.
[248]
U.S. Naval Institute News, “ USNI News Fleet and Marine Tracker: March 21, 2022.” March 21, 2022.
https://news.usni.org/2022/03/21/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-march-21-2022
[249]
U.S. Naval Institute News, by Mallory Shelbourne, “China Has World’s Largest Navy With 355 Ships and Counting,
Says Pentagon.” November 3, 2021.
https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-navy-with-355-ships-and-counting-says
[250]
The Daily Caller, by Harold Hutchison, “Obama Navy Now Half The Size Of Reagan Navy”, October18, 2015.
https://dailycaller.com/2015/10/18/obama-navy-now-half-the-size-of-reagan-navy/
[251]
Jeff Schogol, Task and Purpose, “Is China’s navy as dangerous as so many fear?” April 8, 2022.
https://taskandpurpose.com/analysis/chinese-navy-dangerous-us-military/
[252]
USNI News. “SECNAV, CNO Pushing Plans to Decommission 11 Warships in Fiscal Year 2024,” March 20, 2023.
https://news.usni.org/2023/03/20/secnav-cno-pushing-plans-to-decommission-11-warships-in-fiscal-year-2024.
[253]
U.S. Senator Roger Wicker. “Wicker Proposal for 355 Ships Signed Into Law,” December 12, 2017.
https://www.wicker.senate.gov/2017/12/wicker-proposal-for-355-ships-signed-into-law.

149
[254]
U.S. Air Force, Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs, , “The Air Force We Need: 386 operational squadrons”,
September 17, 2018.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1635070/the-air-force-we-need-386-operational-squadrons/
[255]
AEI, by Mackenzie Eaglen and Hallie Coyne, March 2020, “The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch”,
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-2020s-Tri-Service-Modernization-Crunch-1.pdf?x91208#page=
19
[256]
Ibid.
[257]
AEI, by Mackenzie Eaglen and Hallie Coyne, March 2020, “The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch”,
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-2020s-Tri-Service-Modernization-Crunch-1.pdf?x91208#page=
52
[258]
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/03/13/us-air-force-pursues-major-aircraft-retirements-in-2024/
[259]
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FM-Resources/Budget/Air-Force-Presidents-Budget-FY23/
[260]
Heritage Foundation, by Thomas W. Spoehr, “Rebuilding America’s Military Project:
The United States Army”, August 22, 2019. https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/SR215_0.pdf
[261]
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/07/20/69722edb/sa-csa-memo-a-call-to-service-to-overcome-recruiting-
and-retention-challenges.pdf
[262]
Heritage Foundation, 2021 Index of U.S. Military Strength: U.S. Army, November 17, 2020,
https://www.heritage.org/2021-index-us-military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-army
[263]
Institute for Defense and Government Advancement, by Elizabeth Mixson, May 29, 2019, “The Army's Top LRPF
Strategic Priorities & Developments”,
https://www.idga.org/land/whitepapers/long-range-precision-fires-in-2019-the-armys-top-prioritues
[264]
Congressional Research Service, March 16, 2021, “U.S. Army Long-Range Precision Fires: Background and Issues
for Congress”, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R46721.pdf
[265]
AEI, by Mackenzie Eaglen and Hallie Coyne, March 2020, “The 2020s Tri-Service Modernization Crunch”,
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-2020s-Tri-Service-Modernization-Crunch-1.pdf?x91208#page=
47
[266]
Defense News, by Jen Judson, December 23, 2020, “Lawmakers slash funding for Marine Corps’ long-range fires
development”, Lawmakers slash funding for Marine Corps’ long-range fires development (defensenews.com)
[267]
The Heritage Foundation, “Does the United States Need a Space Force?”,
https://www.heritage.org/space-policy/heritage-explains/does-the-united-states-need-space-force
[268]
The Heritage Foundation, by John Venable, April 27, 2021, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Space
Force”, https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/rebuilding-americas-military-the-united-states-space-force
[269]
Ibid.
[270]
Ibid.
[271]
U.S. Department of Defense, “2018 Nuclear Posture Review” February 2018,
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PD
F.
[272]
Defense News, by Franklin C. Miller and John R. Harvey “Commentary: The looming crisis for US tritium production.”
March 6, 2017
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/03/06/commentary-the-looming-crisis-for-us-tritium-produc
tion/.
[273]
Defense News, by Joe Gould, “Biden plan to shelve Trump-era sea nuke comes under fire.” April 1, 2022.
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/04/01/biden-plan-to-shelve-trump-era-sea-nuke-comes-under-fire/
[274]
Harris, Bryant. “New US Nuclear Chief Takes Fresh Stance on Sea-Launched Cruise Missile.” Defense News, March
14, 2023.
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/03/14/new-us-nuclear-chief-takes-fresh-stance-on-sea-launche
d-cruise-missile/

150
[275]
The Heritage Foundation, by Patty-Jane Geller, “Dangerous Nuclear Policy Idea No. 4: Defunding the Nuclear
Sea-Launched Cruise Missile.” September 27, 2021,
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/dangerous-nuclear-policy-idea-no-4-defunding-the-nuclear-sea-launched-cru
ise-missile
[276]
Department of Homeland Security, “Secretary Nielsen Statement on Executive Order to Protect the U.S. from
Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks”, March 27, 2019
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/03/27/secretary-nielsen-statement-executive-order-protect-us-electromagnetic-pulse
-attacks.
[277]
Space News, by Sandra Erwin, “U.S. intelligence: Russia and China will have ‘operational’ anti-satellite weapons in a
few years.”
https://spacenews.com/u-s-intelligence-russia-and-china-will-have-operational-anti-satellite-weapons-in-a-few-years/
.
[278]
The New York Times, by Nicole Perlroth, “As Trump and Kim Met, North Korean Hackers Hit Over 100 Targets in
U.S. and Ally Nations.” March 3, 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/03/technology/north-korea-hackers-trump.html.
[279]
BBC, “US imposes sanctions on Russia over cyber-attacks”, April 16, 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56755484
[280]
UCLA Law, “E. Tendayi Achiume, Professor of Law, Alicia Miñana Chair in Law.” Accessed June 6, 2022.
https://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/e-tendayi-achiume
[281]
Family Research Council, “Abortion Worldwide Report: 100 Countries, 1 Century, 1 Billion Babies,” January 25,
2017, https://www.frc.org/events/abortion-worldwide-report-100-countries-1-century-1-billion-babies.
[282]
Guttmacher Institute, “Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion Worldwide,” March 2022,
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide
[283]
Melanie Israel, “Biden, FDA Move to Turn Local Pharmacies Into Abortion Clinics.” The Heritage Foundtion, January
6, 2023. https://www.heritage.org/life/commentary/biden-fda-move-turn-local-pharmacies-abortion-clinics
[284]
Christopher Rufo, “Going All In.” City Journal. July 15, 2021.
https://www.city-journal.org/nea-to-promote-critical-race-theory-inschools and
https://kansaspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/NEA-Item-39-Document_20210715_0001.pdf
[285]
National Review, Florida Becomes the 26th Permitless Carry State, accessed April 12, 2023,
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/florida-becomes-the-26th-permitless-carry-state/
[286]
Family Research Council, “Attacks on Churches, Pro-Life Organizations, Property and People Sine the Dobbs Leak
on May 2, 2022 (as of 3/16/23).” Accessed March 24, 2023. https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF22F17.pdf
[287]
Catholic News Agency, “Merrick Garland grilled on anti-Catholic, pro-abortion bias during Senate hearing” accessed
April 11, 2023.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253775/merrick-garland-grilled-on-anti-catholic-pro-abortion-bias-during
-senate-hearing
[288]
Miranda Devine, “‘Betraying the American people’: Leaked video reveals Joe Biden’s ‘hush hush’ migrant invasion.”
New York Post, January 26, 2022
https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/leaked-video-reveals-joe-bidens-hush-hush-migrant-invasion/
[289]
Families Against Fentanyl, “Fentanyl Fatalities – Fentanyl poisoning poses a serious threat to the American public,
killing more people last year than suicide, car accidents or gun violence.”
https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.108.196/w7l.6b7.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/facts.pdf?time=1
644505441
[290]
Republican Study Committee, “RSC Steering Committee Endorses Border Security Framework.” March 17, 2023.
https://rsc-hern.house.gov/news/press-releases/rsc-steering-committee-endorses-border-security-framework
[291]
Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, “Roll Call 209 | Bill Number: H. R. 2.” May 11, 2023.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023209

151
[292]
Chairman Green Slams the Biden Administration Ahead of the End of Title 42: “They’re Not Prepared” House
Homeland Security, May 10, 2023.
https://homeland.house.gov/chairman-green-slams-the-biden-administration-ahead-of-the-end-of-title-42-theyre-not
-prepared/
[293]
Center for Immigration Studies, “Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States,” Updated on March 22, 2021,
https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States.
[294]
The National Law Review, “Biden Administration Abandons Trump-Era Public Charge Rule,” March 23, 2021,
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/biden-administration-abandons-trump-era-public-charge-rule.
[295]
Federation for American Immigration Reform, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers
2023.” March 2023,
https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Fiscal%20Burden%20of%20Illegal%20Immigration%20on%20Ame
rican%20Taxpayers%202023%20WEB_1.pdf
[296]
Sally Pipes, “Don’t Fall for Biden’s Obamacare Boosterism.” Newsmax, January 25, 2023.
https://www.newsmax.com/sallypipes/biden-obamacare-taxpayers/2023/01/25/id/1105864/
[297]
Congressional Budget Office, “Re: Health Insurance Policies.” July 21, 2022
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2022-07/58313-Crapo_letter.pdf
[298]
Brian Blase, PhD. “Expanded ACA Subsidies: Exacerbating Health Inflation and Income Inequality.” Galen Institute,
March 30, 2023.
https://galen.org/assets/Expanded-ACA-Subsidies-Exacerbating-Health-Inflation-and-Income-Inequality.pdf
[299]
Ibid
[300]
Congressional Budget Office, “Re: Health Insurance Policies.” July 21, 2022
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2022-07/58313-Crapo_letter.pdf
[301]
Ibid.
[302]
Brian Blase, “The Family Glitch Fix Shows Bias Against Employer Reimbursement Accounts.” HRA Council,
December 21, 2022.
https://www.hracouncil.org/commentaries/the-family-glitch-fix-shows-bias-against-employer-reimbursement-accounts
/
[303]
Edmund Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Obamacare Has Doubled the Cost of Individual Health Insurance.” The
Heritage Foundation, March 21, 2021.
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/obamacare-has-doubled-the-cost-individual-health-insurance
[304]
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “County by County Analysis of Current Projected Insurer Participation in
Health Insurance Exchanges,” June 13, 2017,
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2017-Press-releases-items/2017-06-13.html.
[305]
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “County by County Plan Year 2023 Insurer Participation in Health
Insurance Exchanges.” Accesses March 30, 2023. ,”
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/py2023-county-coverage-map.pdf.
[306]
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “The National Health Expenditure Accounts: Historical,” Accesses March
30, 2023,
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nat
ionalhealthaccountshistorical
[307]
Rabah Kamal, Daniel McDermott, Giorlando Ramirez, and Cynthia Cox, “How Has U.S. Spending on Healthcare
Changed Over Time?” Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker, Accessed on March 30, 2023,
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#item-public-and-privat
e-health-spending-have-both-grown-substantially-but-public-spending-has-grown-faster_2017.
[308]
Meg Bryant, “ACA is Taking a Toll on Physician-Owned Hospitals,” Health Care Drive, July 11, 2017,
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/aca-is-taking-a-toll-on-physician-owned-hospitals/446761/.

152
[309]
Reed Abelson. “When Hospitals Merge to Save Money, Patients Often Pay More” New York Times, November 18,
2018, Sec. B. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/health/hospital-mergers-health-care-spending.html
[310]
Republican Study Committee, “A Framework for Personalized, Affordable Care,” Accessed March 30, 2022,
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/FINAL%20RSC%20Health%20Care%20Re
port.pdf#page=7.
[311]
Robert E. Moffit, PhD. “British “Single-Payer” Health Care Program Is Cratering. That Should Be Wake-Up Call for
U.S. Liberals.” The Heritage Foundation, January 25, 2023.
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/british-single-payer-health-care-program-cratering-should-
be-wake
[312]
Republican Study Committee, “A Framework for Personalized, Affordable Care,” Accessed March 30, 2022April 30,
2022,
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/FINAL%20RSC%20Health%20Care%20Re
port.pdf#page=7.
[313]
Ibid.
[314]
Joel Allumbaugh, Tarren Bragdon, and Josh Archambault, “Invisible High-Risk Pools: How Congress Can Lower
Premiums And Deal With Pre-Existing Conditions.” Health Affairs, March 2, 2017.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20170302.059003/
[315]
Doug Badger, Heritage Foundation, “How Health Care Premiums Are Declining in States That Seek Relief from
Obamacare’s Mandates.” August 13, 2019,
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/how-health-care-premiums-are-declining-states-seek-relief-obam
acares?_gl=1*gpkue7*_ga*MjQxMzQxNDAxLjE2MzUxODIzNTQ.*_ga_W14BT6YQ87*MTY1MjIwMzkxNC41LjAuMTY1M
jIwMzkxNC42MA..&_ga=2.31373119.141285115.1652203915-241341401.1635182354
[316]
Ibid
[317]
Christopher Jacobs, “How an Obscure Regulatory Change Could Transform American Health Insurance,” The
Federalist, October 30, 2018,
https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/30/how-an-obscure-regulatory-change-could-transform-american-health-insurance/
.
[318]
Americans for Prosperity, Rep. Chip Roy’s Healthcare Freedom Act Would Give Patients a Personal Option in Health
Care.” October 18, 2022.
https://americansforprosperity.org/rep-chip-roys-healthcare-freedom-act-would-give-patients-a-personal-option-in-he
alth-care/
[319]
“Expanding Access to More Affordable Individual Market Options.” House Ways and Means Committee Republicans,
October 29, 2020. https://waysandmeans.house.gov/affordable-individual-market-options/
[320]
Isabelle Morales, “Biden Budget Expands Disastrous Price Controls on Medicine.” Americans for Tax Reform, March
9, 2023. https://www.atr.org/biden-budget-expands-disastrous-price-controls-on-medicine/
[321]
Tomas Philipson and Troy Durie, “The Evidence Base on the Impact of Price Controls on Medical Innovation.” Becker
Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago, September 14, 2021.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/the-evidence-base-on-the-impact-of-price-controls-on-medical-innovation/
[322]
Congressman Schweikert Introduces Legislation to Expand Patient Access to Innovative Healthcare Technologies.”
U.S. Congressman David Schweikert, July 22, 2021.
https://schweikert.house.gov/2021/07/22/congressman-schweikert-introduces-legislation-expand-patient-access/
[323]
Kaiser Family Foundation, “2022 Employer Health Benefits Survey,” October 27, 2022,
https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2022-section-2-health-benefits-offer-rates/
[324]
Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra, “The Labor Market Effects of Rising Health Insurance Premiums,”
https://www.nber.org/papers/w11160.pdf.
[325]
Ibid.

153
[326]
Peter G. Peterson Foundation, “Why Are Americans Paying More for Healthcare?” January 20, 2023. ,
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/04/why-are-americans-paying-more-for-healthcare.
[327]
Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2023 to 2033.” February 15, 2023,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58848
[328]
Avik Roy, prepared testimony for hearing on “Strengthening Medicaid and Prioritizing the Most Vulnerable,” House
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health, 115th Congress, 1st Session, February 1, 2017,
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF14/20170201/105498/HHRG-115-IF14-Wstate-RoyA-20170201.pdf.
[329]
National Bureau of Economic Research, “Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Overview,” Accessed April 30, 2022,
http://www.nber.org/oregon/index.html.
[330]
Chris Pope, “A Plan to Make Medicaid Fair, Focused, and Accountable.” Manhattan Institute, August 20, 2020.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/plan-make-medicaid-fair-accountable
[331]
American Legislative Exchange Council, “Resolution on Federal Medicaid and Welfare Block Grants,” January 28,
2013, https://www.alec.org/model-policy/resolution-on-federal-medicaid-and-welfare-block-grants/.
[332]
Brian Blase, “Biden Was Right: Medicaid Provider Taxes A 'Scam' That Should Be Scrapped.” Forbes, February 16,
2016.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/02/16/biden-was-right-medicaid-provider-taxes-a-scam-that-shoul
d-be-scrapped/?sh=62c2181c1c6c
[333]
Congressional Budget Office, “Work Requirements and Work Supports for Recipients of Means-Tested Benefits.”
June 2022, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/57702-Work-Requirements.pdf#page=32
[334]
Congressional Budget Office, “Options for Reducing the Deficit: Limit State Taxes on Healthcare Providers.”
December 7, 2022. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58623
[335]
Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 20232 to 20332.” February 15May 25, 20232,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58848https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57950
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43357
[336]
Chris Pope, “A Plan to Make Medicaid Fair, Focused, and Accountable.” Manhattan Institute, August 20, 2020.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/plan-make-medicaid-fair-accountable
[337]
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Access to Health Coverage.” February 28, 2023.
https://www.cms.gov/pillar/expand-access
[338]
The Board of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Funds, “2023
Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Funds.” March 31, 2023. https://www.cms.gov/oact/tr/2023
[339]
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, “July 2022: A Data Book – Healthcare Spending and the Medicare
Program.” July 2022,
https://www.medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/July2022_MedPAC_DataBook_SEC_v2.pdf
[340]
The Board of Trustees, Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Funds, “2023
Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical
Insurance Trust Funds. “ March 31, 2023. https://www.cms.hgov/oact/tr/2023
[341]
Ibid.
[342]
Ibid.
[344]
Avik Roy, “Fact-Checking the Obama Campaign’s Defense of its $716 billion Cut to Medicare.” The Apothecary,
August 16, 2012.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/08/16/fact-checking-the-obama-campaigns-defense-of-its-716-billi
on-cut-to-medicare/?sh=dc7dc6b385f2
[345]
Avik Roy, “How Obamacare’s $716 billion in Cuts Will Drive Doctors out of Medicare.” The Apothecary, August 20,
2012.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/08/20/how-obamacares-716-billion-in-cuts-will-drive-doctors-out-
of-medicare/?sh=d60217affbbf

154
[346]
House Ways and Means Committee, “Biden’s Budget on Health Care: Medicare Cuts, Fewer Cures, Higher Drug
Prices, and More Government Control.” March 10, 2023.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/bidens-budget-on-health-care-medicare-cuts-fewer-cures-higher-drug-prices-and-
more-government-control/
[347]
Peter Z. Grossman, “A wind and solar electric grid? That’s a terrible idea.” The Hill, January 12, 2022.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/589235-a-wind-and-solar-electric-grid-thats-a-terrible-idea/#:~:text=
Blackouts%20are%20unavoidable%20with%20solar,anything%20like%20an%20acceptable%20cost.
[348]
Mark P. Mills, “The ‘Energy Transition’ Delusion: A Reality Reset.” Manhattan Institute, August 30, 2022.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-energy-transition-delusion
[349]
Isabelle Morales, “Biden Budget Expands Disastrous Price Controls on Medicare.” Americans for Tax Reform, March
9, 2023. https://www.atr.org/biden-budget-expands-disastrous-price-controls-on-medicine/
[350]
Tomas Philipson, Troy Devine. “The Evidence Base on the Impact of Price Controls on Medical Innovation.” Becker
Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago. September 14, 2021.
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/the-evidence-base-on-the-impact-of-price-controls-on-medical-innovation/
[351]
“Budget of the U.S. Government.” The White House. Accessed March 19, 2023.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/budget_fy2024.pdf#page=150
[352]
CBO, "A Premium Support System for Medicare: Updated Analysis of Illustrative Options," October 2017,
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53077-premiumsupport.pdf.
[353]
CBO, “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028.”, December 2018,
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-06/54667-budgetoptions-2.pdf#page=92.
[354]
CBO, “Reduce Medicare’s Coverage of Bad Debt,” Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2023 to 2033 December 7,
2022, https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58648
[355]
The RSC FY2024 Budget uses intermediate estimates from the 2023 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of
the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds for estimates of net Medicare
spending.
[356]
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), “Database: Population,” Accessed on March 10, 2022,
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POPTHM#0; Social Security Administration, “THE 2022 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY
INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS,” June 2, 2022. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2022/tr2022.pdf#page=70
[358]
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate,” Accessed March 10, 2023,
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm.
[359]
“Job Openings and Labor Turnover- January 203.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 8, 2023.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
[360]
“DI and SSI Program Participants: characteristics & Employment, 2015.” Social Security Administration, March
2020. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/di-ssi-employment/2015/dsppce-2015.pdf#page=18
[361]
Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, “Longitudinal Statistics on Work Activity and Use of Employment
Supports for New Social Security Disability Beneficiaries,” Social Security Administration, 2011,
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n3/v71n3p35.html.
[362]
“Heritage Foundation Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Disability Insurance: Shift to a Flat, Anti-Poverty
Benefit.” Heritage Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations inflated.
[363]
“Heritage Foundation Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Disability Insurance: Limit Retroactive Benefits to Six
Months, and Include Unearned Income in the Measure of Substantial Gainful Activity.” Heritage Foundation. Accessed
March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for FY 2024-FY2033 inflated and adjusted for interactions.
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.222.html
[364]
“Heritage Foundation FY2023 Budget Blueprint: Disability Insurance: Update the Official List of Available Jobs in
the National Economy.” Heritage Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for FY

155
2024-FY2033 inflated and adjusted for interactions.
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.212.html
[365]
Ibid.
[366]
“Require Social Security Disability Insurance Applicants to have Worked More in Recent Years.” Congressional
Budget Office. December 7, 2022. RSC Score for FY 2024-FY2033 inflated and adjusted to account for interactions.
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58652
[367]
Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, “Letter to The Honorable Joseph R.
Biden,” Social Security Administration, October 23, 2014,
https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/FY%202012%20CDR%20Report.pdf.
[368]
Alexandra Constantin, Julia Porcino, John Collins and Zhou Chunxiao, “Data-Driven Solutions for Improving the
Continuing Disability Review Process,” McCrery-Pomeroy SSDI Solutions Initiative, Accessed April 11, 2021,
http://ssdisolutions.org/sites/default/files/constantinporcinocollinszhou.pdf.
[369]
“Heritage Foundation Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Disability Insurance: Establish Time-Limited,
Needs-Based Benefits.” Heritage Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for
FY2024-FY2033 inflated and adjusted for interactions.
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.221.html
[370]
“Heritage Foundation Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2023: Strengthen Continuing Disability Reviews.” Heritage
Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for FY 2024-FY2033 inflated and adjusted
for interactions. https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.219.html
[371]
Chuck Young, “Improving and Modernizing Federal Disability Programs,” 2019 High Risk Report (Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)), March 2019, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-157sp.
[372]
Mark J. Warshawsky and Ross Marchand, “Modernizing the SSDI Eligibility Criteria: A Reform Proposal That
Eliminates the Outdated Medical-Vocational Grid,” Mercatus Center, April 28, 2015,
http://mercatus.org/publication/modernizing-ssdi-eligibility-criteria-eliminates-medical-vocational-grid.
[373]
“A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized Government.” Center for American Renewal. Accessed March 28,
2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for FY 2024-FY2033 inflated and adjusted for interactions.
https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Budget-Center-for-Renewing-America-FY23.pdf#page=97
[374]
Social Security Administration, “Reducing Improper Payments,” Accessed March 10, 2023,
https://www.ssa.gov/improperpayments/RSDI_progInfo.html.
[375]
Bipartisan Policy Center, Improve the SSDI Program and Address the Impending Trust Fund Depletion (Washington,
DC: Bipartisan Policy Center), August 25, 2015, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/ssdi-program/.
[376]
William Morton, “Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Reform: An Overview of Proposals to Manage the
Growth in the SSDI Rolls,” Congressional Research Service (CRS), January 9, 2015,
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43054.html.
[377]
Alex Constantin, Julia Porcino, John Collins, and Zhou Chunxiao, “Data-Driven Solutions for Improving the
Continuing Disability Review Process”; Daniel Bertoni, Social Security Disability SSA Could Increase Savings by
Refining Its Selection of Cases for Disability Review (Washington, DC: GAO), February 2016,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675168.pdf.
[379]
Richard Hillman, Income Security: Overlapping Disability and Unemployment Benefits Should be Evaluated for
Potential Savings (Washington, DC: GAO), August 30, 2012, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-764.
[380]
William R. Morton, Concurrent Receipt of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Unemployment Insurance
(UI): Background and Legislative Proposals (Washington, DC: CRS), July 31, 2015,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43471.pdf.
[381]
Office of Rep. Jodey Arrington, “Arrington Introduces Legislation to End ‘Double Dipping’ of Disability and
Unemployment Insurance Benefits,” press release, January 10, 2020,
https://arrington.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=67.

156
[382]
“Heritage Foundation Budget Blueprint: Disability Insurance: End Double-Dipping Between Disability Insurance and
Unemployment Insurance Programs.” Heritage Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC Estimates used for
calculations for FY 2024-FY2033 inflated and adjusted for interactions.
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.223.html
[383]
Rachel Greszler, “Time to Cut Out the SSA as Middleman in SSDI Representation,” Heritage Foundation, November
24, 2015,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/11/time-to-cut-out-the-ssa-as-middleman-in-ssdi-representation.
[384]
Jeffrey S. Wolfe and David W. Engel, “Restoring Social Security Disability’s Purpose,” CATO Institute, Spring 2013,
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2013/3/v36n1-11.pdf.
[385]
“Heritage Foundation Budget Blueprint FY2023: Disability Insurance: End Direct Payments to SSDI
Representatives.” Heritage Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for FY
2024-2033 inflated and adjusted for interactions.
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.214.html
[386]
David Engel, Dale Glendenning, and Jeffrey Wolfe, “Restructuring Disability Adjudication,” McCrery-Pomeroy SSDI
Solutions Initiative, Accessed April 11, 2021, http://ssdisolutions.org/sites/default/files/engelglendeningwolfe_0.pdf.
[387]
“Heritage Foundation Budget Blueprint FY 2023: Disability Insurance: Apply Administrative Law Judge Reforms.”
Heritage Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for FY 2024-FY2033 inflated and
adjusted for interactions. https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.218.html
[388]
“Eliminate Eligibility for Starting Social Security Disability Benefits at Age 62 or Later.” Congressional Budget
Office. December 9, 2020. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/56841 RSC estimates used for calculations for FY
2024-FY2033 adjusted for interactions
[389]
David F. Babbel and Mark F. Meyer, “Expanding Private Disability Insurance Coverage to Help the SSDI Program,”
McCrery-Pomeroy SSDI Solutions Initiative. http://ssdisolutions.org/sites/default/files/babbelmeyer.pdf.
[390]
Rachel Greszler, “Private Disability Insurance Option Could Help Save SSDI and Improve Individual Well-being,”
Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2015,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/private-disability-insurance-option-could-help-save-ssdi-and-impro
ve-individual-well-being;
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Access to Disability Insurance Plans,” Accessed on April 8, 2023,
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/employee-access-to-disability-insurance-plans.htm.
[392]
Rachel Greszler, “Private Disability Insurance Option Could Help Save SSDI and Improve Individual Well-Being.”
Heritage Foundation, July 20, 2015.
https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/private-disability-insurance-option-could-help-save-ssdi-and-improve
[393]
“Heritage Foundation FY2023 Budget Blueprint: Disability Insurance: Offer an Optional, Private Disability Insurance
Alternative.” Heritage Foundation. Accessed March 10, 2023. RSC estimates used for calculations for FY 2024-FY 2033
inflated and adjusted for interactions. https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/0.650.211.html
[394]
Social Security Administration, “The 2023 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds.” March 31, 2023 ,
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2023/tr2023.pdf
[395]
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Analysis of CBO’s February 2023 Budget and Economic Outlook.”
February 15, 2023. https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-february-2023-budget-and-economic-outlook
[396]
Oscar Jorda,Celeste Liu, Fernando Nechio, and Fabian Rivera-Reyes, “Why is U.S. Inflation Higher tannin Other
Countries?” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, March 28, 2022.
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2022/march/why-is-us-inflation-higher-than-in-
other-countries/
[397]
Francois de Soyres, Ana Maria Santacreu, and Henry Young. “Demand-Supply Imbalance during the COVID-19
Pandemic: The Role of Fiscal Policy.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. First Quarter 2023.

157
https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/2023/01/20/demand-supply-imbalance-during-the-covid-19
-pandemic-the-role-of-fiscal-policy.pdf
[398]
Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2023 to 2033.” February 2023,
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-02/58848-Outlook.pdf#=19
[399]
Andrew G. Biggs, James C. Capretta, “How Biden helped Congress cut Social Security 40 years ago.” The
Washington Post, March 2, 2023.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/02/biden-compromise-social-security-reform-1983/
[400]
Social Security Administration, “Legislative History: Summary of P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900), Social Security
Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983.” November 26, 1984.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html#:~:text=The%20law%20made%20other%20changes,will%20be%20ma
de%20in%20January
[401]
Social Security Administration, “Vote Tallies - 1983 Amendments.” Accessed March 17, 2023.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1983.html
[402]
Social Security Administration, “Appendix C of the 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform: Chapter
2 – Findings and Recommendations.” Accessed April 7, 2023. https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html
[403]
Social Security Administration, “Legislative History: Summary of P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900), Social Security
Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983.” November 26, 1984.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html#:~:text=The%20law%20made%20other%20changes,will%20be%20ma
de%20in%20January
[404]
Congressional Budget Office, “CBO’s 2022 Long-Term Projections for Social Security.” December 16, 2022.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58564#:~:text=CBO%20projects%20that%20if%20Social,GDP%20over%20the%20s
ame%20period.
[405]
Brian Riedl, “Spending, Taxes and Deficits: A Book of Charts.” Manhattan Institute, November 2022.
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/BudgetChartBook-2022-1.pdf
[406]
Social Security Administration, “Contribution and Benefit Base.” Accessed March 16, 2023.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html#:~:text=We%20call%20this%20annual%20limit,for%20employees%20and%2
0employers%2C%20each.
[407]
Tax Foundation, “Eliminate the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap.” Accessed March 16, 2023.
https://taxfoundation.org/tax-reform-options/?option=34
[408]
“President Biden’s State of the Union Address.” February 7, 2023.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2023/
[409]
Tax Foundation, “Apply the Social Security Payroll Tax to Wages Above $400,000.” Accessed March 17, 2023.
https://taxfoundation.org/tax-reform-options/?option=35
[410]
Alexander Bolton, “Sen. Cassidy to Yellen at hearing: “That’s a Lie.” The Hill, March 16, 2023.
https://thehill.com/business/budget/3903915-sen-cassidy-to-yellen-at-hearing-thats-a-lie/
[411]
Ibid.
FY2024-FY2033 Score, with RSC revenue estimate inflated for FY2032 and FY 2033.
[412]
The RSC FY2024 Budget uses intermediate estimates from the 2023 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of
the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds for estimates of net Social
Security Spending.
[413]
See “Creating Opportunity Through Tax Reform” section of this budget.
[414]
Parker Sheppard, Richard Stern and Kevin Dayaratna, “Policies in the Lower Energy Costs Act will Lower Energy
Costs and Increase GDP.” The Heritage Foundation, March 30, 2023.
https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/report/policies-the-lower-energy-costs-act-will-lower-energy-costs-and-i
ncrease
[415]
“The Top Two Reforms to Restore Federal Fiscal Sanity.” Foundation for Government Accountability, May 2, 2023.
https://thefga.org/one-pagers/the-top-two-reforms-to-restore-federal-fiscal-sanity/

158
[416]
Patrick McLaughlin, Nita Ghei, and Michael Wilt, “Regulatory Accumulation and Its Costs.” Mercatus Center, May 4,
2016. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/regulatory-accumulation-and-its-costs
[417]
Jared Walczak, “State Strategies for Closing FY 2020 with a Balanced Budget.” Tax Foundation, April 2, 2020.
https://taxfoundation.org/fy-2020-state-budgets-fy-2021-state-budgets/
[418]
Congress.gov, H.J.Res. 2, https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-joint-resolution/2
[419]
Ryan Bourne, Cato Institute, “Budget Restraints That Work: Lessons from Chile, Switzerland, the United Kingdom,
and the United States”, CATO Institute, February 21, 2018.
https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/budget-restraints-work-lessons-chile-switzerland-united-kingd
om.
[420]
Debt to the Penny, Accesses April 13, 2022
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny
[421]
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., Rod Bordelon, The Honorable Talmadge Heflin, “2022-23, Conservative Texas Budget.” Texas
Public Policy Foundation, Accessed April 29, 2022. https://www.texaspolicy.com/2022-23-conservative-texas-budget/
[422]
Matthew Dickerson, “Return of the Swamp: Earmarks Would Be a Costly Mistake.” Heritage Foundation, March 30,
2021. https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/return-the-swamp-earmarks-would-be-costly-mistake
[423]
Citizens Against Government Waste, “2022 Congressional Pig Book,” Accessed March 8, 2023,
https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book.
[424]
Republican Study Committee, Official Steering Position,
https://mailchi.mp/990d91758d71/first-edition-the-chairman-elects-memo-309681
[425]
Republican Study Committee, “Restoring Congressional Article I Authority While Opposing Earmarks”,
https://banks.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rsc_memo_proposals_to_restore_article_i_authority_to_congress_jf.pdf
[426]
United States Senate Committee on the Budget, “Changes in Mandatory Programs: An Overspending Tool.” June
28, 2018.
https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Budget%20Bulletin%20-%202018-06-28%20FINAL.2%202.pdf
[427]
Congressional Budget Office “Expired and Expiring Authorizations of Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2022”. August,
2022. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58443
[428]
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Why Lawmakers Should Fix The Budgetary Treatment Of The
Highway Trust Fund”, July 26, 2014.
http://crfb.org/blogs/why-lawmakers-should-fix-budgetary-treatment-highway-trust-fund.
[429]
Congressional Budget Office, “How CBO Prepares Cost Estimates”, February 2018.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53519-costestimates.pdf.
[430]
Many appropriations bills include changes in mandatory programs (CHIMPS). Because of CBO scoring conventions,
an appropriations bill can offset increases in discretionary spending by reducing mandatory spending in the first year of
the budget window. These CHIMPS are often just gimmicks that shift the timing of mandatory spending, and allow
increases in discretionary spending year after year using the same “offset” repeatedly. CBO scores CHIMPS in
appropriations bills, but neither CBO nor the House Appropriations Committee generally disclose this information
publicly.
[431]
Brian Riedl, “Spending, Taxes & Deficits: A Book of Charts.” November 2022,
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/BudgetChartBook-2022-1.pdf
[432]
Ibid
[433]
“History of the Crop Insurance Program.” United States Department of Agriculture – Risk Management Agency.
Accessed April 2, 2023. https://www.rma.usda.gov/en/About-RMA/History-of-RMA
[436]
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), USDA’s Mandatory Farm Programs-CBO’s May 2023 Baseline.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2023-05/51317-2023-05-usda_0.pdf.
[437]
Ellyn Ferguson, “Vilsack sees farmers keeping climate on congressional agenda.” Roll Call, November 14, 2022.
https://rollcall.com/2022/11/14/vilsack-sees-farmers-keeping-climate-on-congressional-agenda/

159
[438]
Jonathan R. McFadden and Robert A. Hoppe, “The Evolving Distribution of Payments From Commodity,
Conservation, and Federal Crop Insurance Programs.” United States Department OF Agriculture – Economic Research
Service. November 2017. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/85834/eib-184.pdf?v=7001.3#page=40
[439]
“A Budget for America’s Future: Major Savings and Reforms – Fiscal Year 2021.” Office of Management and Budget,
February 10, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/msar_fy21.pdf
[440]
Ibid.
[441]
RSC Calculations based on “Congressional Budget Office (CBO), USDA’s Mandatory Farm Programs-CBO’s May
2023 Baseline.” https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2023-05/51317-2023-05-usda_0.pdf.
[442]
“A Budget for America’s Future: Major Savings and Reforms – Fiscal Year 2021.” Office of Management and Budget,
February 10, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/msar_fy21.pdf
[443]
Grassley Remarks on the Passage of the 2018 Farm Bill
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-remarks-passage-2018-farm-bill
[444]
Ibid
[445]
John C. Beghin, “Recapping the Effects of the US Sugar Program.” American Enterprise Institute, February 2022.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Recapping-the-Effects-of-the-US-Sugar-Program.pdf?x91208
[446]
CBO “Limit Enrollment in the Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Programs.” Accessed April 2, 2023.,
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/56813
[447]
“A Budget for America’s Future: Major Savings and Reforms – Fiscal Year 2021.” Office of Management and Budget,
February 10, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/msar_fy21.pdf
[448]
CBO “Limit Enrollment in the Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Programs.” Accessed April 2, 2023.,
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/56813
[449]
“A Budget for America’s Future: Major Savings and Reforms – Fiscal Year 2021.” Office of Management and Budget,
February 10, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/msar_fy21.pdf
[450]
Philip Brasher, “Dems add $2B in conservation technical assistance to Build Back Better plan.” AgriPulse, December
4, 2021, https://www.agri-pulse.com/
articles/16904-dems-add-2b-in-conservation-technical-assistance-to-build-back-better-plan
[451]
CBO “Congressional Budget Office – Baseline Projections, USDA’s Farm Programs May
2023.”https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2023-05/51317-2023-05-usda_0.pdf
[452]
Linda Hardesty, “Congress lets FCC spectrum auction authority lapse for first time in 30 years.” FIERCE Wireless,
March 10, 2023.
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/congress-lets-fcc-spectrum-auction-authority-lapse-first-time-30-years
[453]
CBO “An Update to the Budget Outlook: 2023 to 2033Outlook: 2023 to 2033.” Congressional Budget Office, May
12, 2023. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58848
[454]
Congressional Budget Office, “Cost of Suspending Student Loan Payments and Cancelling Debt.” September 26,
2022. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-09/58494-Student-Loans.pdf
[455]
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Is Biden's Student Debt Cancellation Plan Still Regressive?” October
3, 2022. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/bidens-student-debt-cancellation-plan-still-regressive
[456]
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Student Debt Changes Would Boost Inflation.” August 26, 2022.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/student-debt-changes-would-boost-inflation
[457]
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Student Loan IDR Changes Are Highly Problematic, Report Shows.”
September 21, 2022. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/student-loan-idr-changes-are-highly-problematic-report-shows
[458]
The RSC Budget assumes repeal of the Biden Administration’s executive actions on student loans takes place in
Fiscal Year 2023.
[459]
Republican Study Committee, “Reclaiming the American Dream”,
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/%5bFINAL%5d%20Reclaiming%20the%20
American%20Dream%20.pdf#page=13

160
[460]
Inside Higher Ed, “Education Department Clarifies Rules on Income-Share Agreements.” March 4, 2022.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/03/04/education-department-clarifies-rules-income-share-agreements
[461]
Congressional Budget Office, “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2023 to 2032”, December, 2022.
https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58643
[462]
David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, Karen Shen, “Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the
Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York. February 2017,
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf
[463]
Ibid.
[464]
Republican Study Committee, “Reclaiming the American Dream”,
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/%5bFINAL%5d%20Reclaiming%20the%20
American%20Dream%20.pdf#page=12
[465]
Rachel Greszler, “California’s ‘Pro-Worker’ Law is Killing Jobs Left and Right.” The Heritage Foundation, January 8,
2020. https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/californias-pro-worker-law-killing-jobs-left-and-right
[466]
Urban Institute, “Housing Finance at a Glance – A Monthly Chartbook. March 2023.”
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Housing%20Finance%20Chartbook%20March%202023.pdf
[467]
Ibid
[468]
John B. Taylor, Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Blueprint for America edited by George Schultz, “National
and International Monetary Reform”, July 8, 2016.
http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/george_shultz_blueprint_for_america_ch6.pdf.
[469]
Thomas Franck, CNBC, “SEC proposes broad climate rules as Chair Gensler says risk disclosure will help investors.”
March 21, 2022,
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/21/sec-proposes-climate-disclosure-rules-as-gensler-broadens-market-oversight.html
[470]
CBO “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2023 to 20332.” Congressional Budget Office, February 15, 2023.May
25, 2022. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58848
[471]
CRS “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data” Updated February 21, 2020
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf#page=2
[472]
U.S. Government and Accountability Office, “Financial Audit: Fiscal Years 2020 and 2019 Consolidated Financial
Statements of the
U.S. Government.” March 25, 2021. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-340r.pdf#page=56
[473]
Ibid
[474]
Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis, “With new monuments in Nevada, Utah, Obama adds to his environmental
legacy”, Washington Post, December 28, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/with-new-monuments-in-nevada-utah-obama-adds-to-his-
environmental-legacy/2016/12/28/e9833f62-c471-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.5ea265d1e108.
[475]
BLM “Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas” Accessed April 3, 2023
https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-conservation-lands/wilderness
[476]
Government Accountability Office, “Federal Workforce Improved Supervision and Better Use of Probationary
Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee Performance”, February 2015.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668339.pdf.
[477]
John W. York, Ph.D. “Firing a Bad Federal Employee May Get a Little Easier” Heritage Foundation, July 19, 2018
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/firing-bad-federal-employee-may-get-little-easier.
[478]
Jared Cole, Congressional Research Service, “The Civil Service Reform Act: Due Process and Misconduct-Related
Adverse Actions”, March 29, 2017. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44803.pdf
[479]
Juliet Eilperin, Lisa Rein and Marc Fisher, “Resistance from within: Federal workers push back against Trump”,
Washington Post, January 31, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/resistance-from-within-federal-workers-push-back-against-trump/2017/01/3
1/c65b110e-e7cb-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.f8c284d0a585.

161
[480]
Republican Study Committee, “Power, Practices, Personnel: 100+ Commonsense Solutions to Better Government.”,
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/GEAR%20Report_Single%20Spread%20FI
NAL.pdf#page=54
[481]
Congressional Budget Office, “Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to
2015”, April; 25, 2017. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637.
[482]
Congressional Budget Office, “Options for Reducing the Deficit, 2023-2032 – Volume II: Smaller Reductions.”
December 7, 2022. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58672
[483]
NAOMI JAGODA, “Watchdog: IRS issued bonuses to employees with conduct issues.” The Hill, February 15, 2018.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/374115-watchdog-irs-issued-bonuses-to-employees-with-conduct-issues/
[484]
Heritage Foundation FY 2023 Budget Blueprint, “Federal Personnel Reform: Bring Retirement Benefits in Line with
the Private Sector.” The Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 3, 2022.
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/2.600.157.html
[485]
Heritage Foundation FY 2023 Budget Blueprint, “Federal Personnel Reform: Eliminate FEHB Retirement Benefits
for New Hires.” The Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 3, 2022.
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/2.600.157.html
[486]
General Services Administration, “Category Management: Leveraging Common Contracts and Best Practices to
Drive Savings and Efficiencies” Dec. 2019,
https://fdocuments.in/document/category-management-leveraging-common-contracts-and-best-leveraging-common-c
ontracts.html?page=1
[487]
Mike Lee, Senator from Utah, “The Transportation Empowerment Act.” Accessed April 19, 2022,
https://www.lee.senate.gov/the-transportation-empowerment-act
[488]
Mike Lee, Senator from Utah, “Lee, DeSantis Introduce Transportation Empowerment Act.” Accessed April 19, 2022.
https://www.lee.senate.gov/2015/6/lee-desantis-introduce-transportation-empowerment-act
[489]
Joseph Kile, Director of Microeconomic Analysis – Congressional Budget Office, “Testimony on Addressing the
Long-Term Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.” April 14, 2021,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57138#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20%2445%20billion%20in,billion%20to%20the%2
0transit%20account.
[490]
Federal Transit Administration, “About FTA” Accessed April 19, 2022. https://www.transit.dot.gov/about-fta.
[491]
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Infrastructure Plan Will Add $400 Billion to the Deficit, CBO Finds.”
August 5, 2021, https://www.crfb.org/blogs/infrastructure-plan-will-add-400-billion-deficit-cbo-finds
[492]
U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – Fact Sheets:
Transportation Alternatives (TA).” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/ta.cfm
[493]
Georgetown Climate Center, “Green Infrastructure Toolkit – Federal Funding: Overview.” Accessed April 3, 2023.
https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/toolkits/green-infrastructure-toolkit/federal-funding.html
[494]
U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration, “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – Fact Sheets:
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/cmaq.cfm
[495]
David Ditch, “Washington’s Devious Detours for Drivers.” Heritage Foundation, April 19, 2022.
https://www.heritage.org/transportation/commentary/washingtons-devious-detours-drivers
[496]
Federal Register, July 16, 2020, “Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act”, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-07-16/pdf/2020-15179.pdf
[497]
The White House, “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America,” February 12, 2018.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/briefing-room/304441/legoutline.pdf.
[498]
Dino Grandoni, Anna Phillips, “Biden restores climate safeguards in key environmental law, reversing Trump.”
Washington Post, April 19, 2022,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/

162
[499]
WSJ Editorial Board, “Highway Funding Bait-and-Switch.” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 30, 2022,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/highway-funding-bait-and-switch-agencies-bipartisan-infrasctructure-new-capacity-cars
-public-transportation-11643576500
[500]
Heritage Foundation, Accessed April 3, 2023. “Budget Blueprint for Fiscal Year 2022 Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act”
https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/4.multiple.3.html
[501]
Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2022: An Infographic
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58890
[502]
Romina Boccia , President Biden’s Budget Misses the Mark Cato.org (2023),
https://www.cato.org/blog/presidential-budget-misses-mark (last visited Apr 3, 2023).
[503]
Spencer Brown, “Here's How Ineligible Recipients Got Nearly $2 Billion in COVID Relief from the IRS.” Townhall,
March 28, 2022,
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/03/28/irs-wasted-nearly-2-billion-on-covid-payments-to-dead-peo
ple-nonresidents-n2605123
[504]
Amanda Hull, “Syracuse's $123 million stimulus spending plan includes $2 million for trees.” CNY Central, July 29th,
2021, https://cnycentral.com/news/local/syracuses-123-million-stimulus-spending-plan-includes-2-million-for-trees
[505]
Trevier Gonzalez, “McAllen ISD approves agreement that would pave way for $4 million expansion of nature park.”
KRGV News, September 14, 2021,
https://www.krgv.com/news/mcallen-isd-approves-agreement-that-would-pave-way-for-4-million-expansion-of-natur
e-park/
[506]
Alana Goodman, “Biden-Backed Solar Company Lied About Effectiveness of Solar Modules, Lawsuit Says.”
Washington Free Beacon, January 14, 2022,
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-backed-solar-company-lied-about-effectiveness-of-solar-modules-
lawsuit-says/
[507]
Ethen Kim Lieser, “Yes, Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Received a Stimulus Check.” The National
Interest, January 12, 2022,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-received-stimulus-check-1994
27
[508]
Amanda Albright and Danielle Moran, “Biden’s Rescue Money Doled Out to Racehorse Owners, Influencers.”
Bloomberg, May 16, 2022
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-16/states-american-rescue-plan-arp-pandemic-aid-goes-to-influ
encers-racetracks
[509]
Ibid.
[510]
Ibid
[511]
Jessica Chasmer, “EPA used COVID-19 relief funds for grants promoting ‘green infrastructure,’ ‘environmental
justice.” Fox News, April 20, 2022,
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/epa-covid-19-relief-funds-grants-green-infrastructure-environmental-justice
[512]
Rep. Jason Smith, @RepJasonSmith, https://twitter.com/RepJasonSmith/status/1576258564355948544
[513]
GAO “Selected Agencies' Activities Supported by Contracts and Public Affairs Staff” September 12, 2017
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-711
[514]
“Who We Are. U.S. Global change Research Program. Accessed March 15, 2023.
https://www.globalchange.gov/about/mission-vision-strategic-plan
[515]
Government Accountability Office, “Seafood Safety: Responsibility for Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to
USDA”, June 8, 2012. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-411.
[516]
U.S. Forest Service, Accessed on March 29, 2023, “By the Numbers”,
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/newsroom/by-the-numbers
[517]
Congressional Research Service, February 21, 2020, “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data”,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

163
[518]
Forest Products Laboratory, Accessed March 29, 2023. https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/
[519]
Karen Dawn, “The End of Animal Farming is Not an Impossible Dream.” The Progressive Magazine, September 1,
2018. https://progressive.org/latest/the-end-of-animal-farming-is-not-an-impossible-dream-181209/
[520]
Robert Stilson, “The Legal Services Corporation: A History of Political Advocacy.” Capital Research Center, January
14, 2020, https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-legal-services-corporation-part-2/
[521]
International Trade Administration, “Congressional Budget Submission: Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 2023.” March,
2022. https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/FY2023-ITA-Congressional-Budget-Submission.pdf
[522]
Leif Rasmussen, “Increasing Politicization and Homogeneity in Scientific Funding: An Analysis of NSF Grants,
1990-2020.” Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, November 16, 2021.
[524]
“National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget Estimates: Fiscal Year 2023.” National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/FY23_NOAAPresidents_Budget_508Compliant.pdf
[525]
Center for American Renewal, “A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized Government: 2023 Budget Proposal.”
Accessed March 29, 2023.
https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Budget-Center-for-Renewing-America-FY23.pdf#page=12
[526]
“Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Report: U.S. Department of Justice – Community Relations Service.” Accessed April 14,
2023. https://www.justice.gov/file/1461451/download
[527]
Center for American Renewal, “A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized Government: 2023 Budget Proposal.”
Accessed March 29, 2023.
https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Budget-Center-for-Renewing-America-FY23.pdf#page=13
[528]
Center for American Renewal, “A Commitment to End Woke and Weaponized Government: 2023 Budget Proposal.”
Accessed March 29, 2023.
https://americarenewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Budget-Center-for-Renewing-America-FY23.pdf#page=72
[529]
“Justice40.” The White House. Accessed March 29, 2023.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/
[530]
“FY 2023 Congressional Budget Request.” Department of Energy, Accessed March 29, 2023.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/doe-fy2023-budget-in-brief-v6.pdf
[531]
Ibid
[532]
“CBO: New IRS Audits Will Grab at Least $20B from Lower- & Middle-Income Families.” House Ways and Means
Committee Republicans. August 12, 2022.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/cbo-new-irs-audits-will-grab-at-least-20b-from-lower-middle-income-families/
[533]
Ari Blaff, “‘I’m Going to Have to Refer You to the IRS’: White House Remains Quiet on Surprise Visit to Taibbi’s
House.” National Review, March 29, 2023.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/im-going-to-have-to-refer-you-to-the-irs-white-house-remains-quiet-on-surpri
se-visit-to-taibbis-house/
[534]
U.S. Department of the Treasury “Equity Action Plan Statement”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Treasury-EO13985-equity-summary.pdf.
[535]
Office of Management and Budget, “A Budget for a Better America: Major Savings and Reforms”, Fiscal Year 2020
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2020-MSV/pdf/BUDGET-2020-MSV.pdf#page=92
[536]
Committee on House Administration, “Harper: Time to Eliminate Obsolete Election Assistance Commission &
Presidential Election Campaign Fund.” February 8, 2017.
https://cha.house.gov/press-release/harper-time-eliminate-obsolete-election-assistance-commission-presidential-electi
on
[537]
Kevin Dayaratna, Katie Tubb and David Kreutzer, “The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden’s Climate Agenda.”
The Heritage Foundation, June 16, 2022.
https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/report/the-unsustainable-costs-president-bidens-climate-agenda

164
[538]
American Action Forum, “Regulation: Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards.” Accessed March 31, 2023.
[539]
Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Change Regulatory Actions and Initiatives.” Accessed March 31, 2023.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/climate-change-regulatory-actions-and-initiatives
[540]
Heritage Foundation FY 2023 Budget Blueprint, “Reduce EPA Grants to Reflect Progress and Actual Risk.” Heritage
Foundation, Accessed March 31, 2023. https://www.heritage.org/budget/pages/recommendations/1.300.123.html
[541]
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Fiscal Year 2020, “Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the
Committee on Appropriations”
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/fy-2020-congressional-justification-all-tabs.pdf#page=
161
[542]
Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Justice”, Accessed April 5, 2018.
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
[543]
Environmental Protection Agency, “Learn About the Global Methane Initiative”, Accessed April 3, 2018.
https://www.epa.gov/gmi/learn-about-global-methane-initiative.
[544]
U.S. Government Accountability Office Report, “Stormwater Management EPA Pilot Project to Increase Use of
Green Infrastructure Could Benefit from Documenting Collaborative Agreements”, September 2017.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687478.pdf.
[545]
This program is now known as the Climate Ready Water Utilities Initiative.
[546]
CRS “Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data” Updated February 21, 2021
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf#page=2
[547]
The Kennedy Center, Accessed on May 23, 2022, “Support: Thank you to our donors!”,
https://www.kennedy-center.org/Support/donor-listings/donors/
[548]
Jordan Sekulow, “Outrageous: In Profanity-Laced Tirade, Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum Berates and
Kicks Out Students for Wearing Hats With Pro-Life and Christian Messages.” American Center for Law and Justice,
January 27, 2023.
https://aclj.org/pro-life/outrageous-in-profanity-laced-tirade-smithsonian-national-air-space-museum-berates-and-kick
s-out-students-for-wearing-hats-with-pro-life-and-christian-messages
[549]
“Rep. Chip Roy leads members of Congress in demanding answers from the Smithsonian for kicking out pro-life
students.” Office of Congressman Chip Roy, February 7, 2023.
https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-chip-roy-leads-members-congress-demanding-answers-smithsonian-ki
cking-out
[550]
David Muhlhausen, “Job Corps: An Unfailing Record of Failure.” The Heritage Foundation, May 5, 2009.
https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/job-corps-unfailing-record-failure
[551]
“A Budget for America’s Future: Major Savings and Reforms.” The White House, Accessed March 31, 2023.
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/msar_fy21.pdf
[552]
“H.R.2617 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.” Accessed March 31, 2023
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr2617/BILLS-117hr2617enr.pdf#page=399
[553]
Government Accountability Office, “Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Greater Fraud Prevention
Controls Are Needed”, June 2010. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-621-highlights.pdf
[554]
“The National Institutes of Health and EcoHealth Alliance Did Not Effectively Monitor Awards and Subawards,
Resulting in Missed Opportunities to Oversee Research and Other Deficiencies.” U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Inspector General, January 25, 2023. https://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region5/52100025.asp
[555]
“Racism and Health.” Centers for Disease Control, Accessed April 1, 2023.
https://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/racism-disparities/index.html
[556]
David Boaz, “Federal Student Loans and Rising Tuition Costs: An Insider Speaks Up.” CATO Institute, July 28, 2021,
https://www.cato.org/blog/federal-student-loans-rising-tuition-costs-insider-speaks

165
[557]
“United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping.” Congressional Research Service, January 20, 2023.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/IF10597.pdf
[558]
Johnson, Stephen. “How to Reinvigorate U.S. Public Diplomacy.” The Heritage Foundation. Accessed June 8, 2020.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/how-reinvigorate-us-public-diplomacy.
[559]
Republican Study Committee, “STRENGTHENING AMERICA & COUNTERING GLOBAL THREATS”,
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/sites/republicanstudycommittee.house.gov/files/%5bFINAL%5d%20NSTF%20Report.pdf#p
age=81
[560]
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “About the OECD”. http://www.oecd.org/about/.
[561]
Andrew F. Quinlan, “CF&P Letter Calls on Congress to Include OECD with UN Defunding Effort”, Center for
Freedom and Prosperity, January 9, 2017.
http://freedomandprosperity.org/files/OECD/OECD_defunding_letter_01-2017.pdf.
[562]
"Public Law 117-58.” Accessed April 1, 2023.
https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf#page=993
[563]
"Public Law 117-58.” Accessed April 1, 2023.
https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf#page=893
[564]
"Public Law 117-58.” Accessed April 1, 2023.
https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf#page=530
[565]
"Public Law 117-58.” Accessed April 1, 2023.
https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf#page=999
[566]
Randal O’Toole, “Amtrak Continues to Lie.” CATO Institute, November 24, 2020,
https://www.cato.org/blog/amtrak-continues-lie
[567]
Baruch Feigenbaum, “Eliminate TIGER Program”, Reason Foundation, February 17, 2015.
http://reason.org/news/show/eliminate-tiger-program.
[568]
Government Accountability Office, “Surface Transportation: Actions Needed to Improve Documentation of Key
Decisions in the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program”, May 28, 2014. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-628R.

166
167