Also this from Kaye on a message board thread at his site:
They're different. The Camp proposal, which should be available on the website of the Ways and Means Committee, would require use of the averaging rule that is currently available for mutual fund shares. The version in the Obama budget proposal is far worse. It would require averaging only for long-term shares, and it would also require averaging across accounts. If you want to read about that one, you can go to the website of the Joint Committee on Taxation and pull up their recent analysis of the tax provisions in the budget proposal.
The ABA Tax Section has come out with commentary on the Camp proposal in which the relevant committee couldn't agree on whether identification should continue to be permitted but arguing against the averaging requirement. I'm astounded that anyone who thinks seriously about the issue could believe it makes sense to do away with identification, which is necessary for neutrality of investment choice and fairness of tax results. The idea that identification provides the taxpayer with an improper advantage is the product of superficial thinking.