U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

19–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

112TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPT. 112–377 

2012

Part 1 

PRO–GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2012 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 3582 

together with 

MINORITY AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

JANUARY 30, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

KEN CALVERT, California 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

AUSTIN SMYTHE, Staff Director 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012 ........................................................................ 1 

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3 

Summary of Proposed Changes ....................................................................... 3 

Legislative History ........................................................................................... 5 

Hearings ............................................................................................................ 5 

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 5 

Section by Section ............................................................................................. 6 

Votes of the Committee .................................................................................... 8 

Committee Oversight Findings ....................................................................... 10 

Budget Act Compliance .................................................................................... 10 

Performance Goals and Objectives .................................................................. 11 

Constitutional Authority Statement ............................................................... 11 

Committee Cost Estimate ................................................................................ 11 

Advisory Committee Statement ...................................................................... 12 

Applicability to the Legislative Branch .......................................................... 12 

Federal Mandates Statement .......................................................................... 12 

Advisory on Earmarks ..................................................................................... 12 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ............................. 12 

Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 15 

Views of Committee Members ......................................................................... 15 

Minority Views .......................................................................................... 16 

Dissenting Views ....................................................................................... 18 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–377 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

PRO–GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2012 

JANUARY 30, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, from the Committee on the Budget, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY AND DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3582] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Budget, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 3582) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Part A of title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 

amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MAJOR LEGISLATION

‘‘SEC. 407. (a) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.—The Congressional Budget Office 

shall, to the extent practicable, prepare for each major bill or resolution reported 

by any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate (except the Committee on Appropriations of each House), as a supplement to estimates prepared 

under section 402, a macroeconomic impact analysis of the budgetary effects of such 

bill or resolution for the ten fiscal-year period beginning with the first fiscal year 

for which an estimate was prepared under section 402 and each of the next three 

ten fiscal-year periods. Such estimate shall be predicated upon the supplemental 

projection described in section 202(e)(4). The Director shall submit to such committee the macroeconomic impact analysis, together with the basis for the analysis. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

As a supplement to estimates prepared under section 402, all such information so 

submitted shall be included in the report accompanying such bill or resolution. 

‘‘(b) ECONOMIC IMPACT.—The analysis prepared under subsection (a) shall describe 

the potential economic impact of the applicable major bill or resolution on major economic variables, including real gross domestic product, business investment, the 

capital stock, employment, and labor supply. The analysis shall also describe the potential fiscal effects of the bill or resolution, including any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in gross domestic product. To the extent 

practicable, the analysis should use a variety of economic models in order to reflect 

the full range of possible economic outcomes resulting from the bill or resolution. 

The analysis (or a technical appendix to the analysis) shall specify the economic and 

econometric models used, sources of data, relevant data transformations, and shall 

include such explanation as is necessary to make the models comprehensible to academic and public policy analysts. 

‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section— 

‘‘(1) the term ‘macroeconomic impact analysis’ means— 

‘‘(A) an estimate of the changes in economic output, employment, capital 

stock, and tax revenues expected to result from enactment of the proposal; 

‘‘(B) an estimate of revenue feedback expected to result from enactment 

of the proposal; and 

‘‘(C) a statement identifying the critical assumptions and the source of 

data underlying that estimate; 

‘‘(2) the term ‘major bill or resolution’ means any bill or resolution if the gross 

budgetary effects of such bill or resolution for any fiscal year in the period for 

which an estimate is prepared under section 402 is estimated to be greater than 

.25 percent of the current projected gross domestic product of the United States 

for any such fiscal year; 

‘‘(3) the term ‘budgetary effect’, when applied to a major bill or resolution, 

means the changes in revenues, outlays, deficits, and debt resulting from that 

measure; and 

‘‘(4) the term ‘revenue feedback’ means changes in revenue resulting from 

changes in economic growth as the result of the enactment of any major bill or 

resolution.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 406 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 407. Macroeconomic impact analysis of major legislation.’’. 

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CBO REPORT TO BUDGET COMMITTEES. 

Section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at 

the end the following new paragraphs: 

‘‘(4)(A) After the President’s budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 

31, United States Code, in addition to the baseline projections, the Director 

shall submit to the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives 

and the Senate a supplemental projection assuming extension of current tax 

policy for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that year with a supplemental projection for the 10 fiscal-year period beginning with that fiscal year, 

assuming the extension of current tax policy. 

‘‘(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘current tax policy’ means 

the tax policy in statute as of December 31 of the current year assuming— 

‘‘(i) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Economic Growth 

and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; 

‘‘(ii) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Jobs and Growth 

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; 

‘‘(iii) the continued application of the alternative minimum tax as in effect 

for taxable years beginning in 2011 pursuant to title II of the Tax Relief, 

Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, 

assuming that for taxable years beginning after 2011 the exemption 

amount shall equal— 

‘‘(I) the exemption amount for taxable years beginning in 2011, as indexed for inflation; or 

‘‘(II) if a subsequent law modifies the exemption amount for later taxable years, the modified exemption amount, as indexed for inflation; 

and 

‘‘(iv) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, gift, and generationskipping transfer tax provisions of title III of the Tax Relief, Unemployment 

Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. 

‘‘(5) On or before July 1 of each year, the Director shall submit to the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Long-Term Budget Outlook for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that 

year and at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years.’’. 

INTRODUCTION

H.R. 3582, the ‘‘Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012’’ was introduced by Representative Price of Georgia. Economists from across 

the ideological spectrum agree that legislation considered by Congress can have significant effects on economic growth. While the 

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Congressional Budget Act) requires that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provide Congress with information on the fiscal impact 

of all legislation reported from committee, there is no systematic 

requirement for analysis of the economic impact of legislation. This 

bill remedies that shortcoming. 

The economic recovery from the recession in 2008 and 2009 has 

been unsatisfactory on nearly all fronts despite the unprecedented 

amount of debt-financed government spending aimed at boosting 

output and creating jobs. Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew 

by just 1.6 percent last year, roughly half the historical trend rate 

of U.S. growth and just a fraction of the growth pace observed in 

a typical recovery from recession. The unemployment rate, although it has ticked down recently, remains unacceptably high at 

8.5 percent and of the 8.6 million jobs lost during the recession and 

aftermath, less than one-third have been recovered. 

Economists now estimate that with such subpar economic growth 

the unemployment rate will probably not return to its pre-recession 

level until very late in the decade. It is clear that one of the key 

drags on the economy is the enormous amount of policy uncertainty 

generated by Washington, which makes businesses unable to predict their future costs, tax liability and profits, making them wary 

about investing, expanding and hiring. This uncertainty has been 

generated by a host of tax and legal mandates soon to take effect 

as a result of recently-passed health care legislation as well as the 

new regulatory burdens, some of which have yet to come into effect, 

contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection 

Act. 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

The bill requires CBO to produce a supplemental macroeconomic 

analysis for major legislation that would describe the likely impact 

of such legislation on key economic variables such as business investment, the capital stock, employment, labor supply, and real 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Importantly, this analysis would 

reflect both the short-term and long-term economic impact as the 

specified horizon for the analysis would be four decades (i.e. three 

decades beyond the typical 10-year budget window), allowing policymakers to judge whether or not considered policies would have 

a net positive or net negative economic impact over time. Likewise, 

the analysis would include estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in real GDP, which, as a supplement to a traditional cost estimates, would help policymaker’s better understand the full budget, as well as economic, impact of legislation. 

The Act defines major legislation by the gross changes in fiscal 

aggregates the legislation would cause as a percentage of the econVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:00 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR377P1.XXX HR377P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

omy. It defines a ‘‘major bill or resolution’’ as legislation causing a 

change in revenues, outlays, deficits, or debt in excess of 0.25 percent of GDP within the 10-year budget window. The Act relies on 

the analysis CBO is already required to conduct under section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act which uses the so-called current 

law baseline. 

Once it is established that legislation is ‘‘major’’ for the purposes 

of the Act, CBO is required to conduct its macroeconomic impact 

analysis relative to a ‘‘current policy’’ baseline, which assumes that 

current tax policies are continued into the indefinite future, much 

like CBO’s ‘‘alternative fiscal scenario’’ baseline. 

CBO already has the necessary analytical tools and expertise to 

produce the macroeconomic reports envisioned by this legislation 

for Congress. CBO has occasionally provided such reports for certain legislation or policies (e.g. ‘‘An Analysis of the President’s 

Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2012 (April 2011), Congressional Budget Office) though currently this analysis is done on an 

ad hoc basis, or by request only. One key aim of this legislation is 

to formalize the process of producing such analysis for each major 

bill or resolution before Congress, thereby providing Members with 

useful information on a consistent basis. 

In its macroeconomic analysis, CBO has typically used a number 

of economic models which focus, respectively, on different timeframes (e.g. short term vs. long term) and contain different assumptions about how individuals, and the overall economy, respond 

to policy changes. While it is clear major legislation has a significant impact no one economic model gives a complete picture of how 

the economy would actually respond to a major government spending or tax policy change. Generally speaking, CBO uses a pair of 

traditional macroeconomic forecasting models developed by privatesector companies (Macroeconomic Advisers and IHS Global Insight) 

to gauge the short-term economic impact of policies. These models 

are driven by traditional Keynesian economic relationships that 

emphasize the influence of aggregate demand on output in the 

short term. 

CBO also uses a pair of other models to gauge the medium and 

long-term economic impact of policies. These so-called growth models (a Solow-type growth model and a life-cycle growth model) concentrate on the supply-side factors in the economy. The elements 

driving economic output in these models are labor supply, the size 

and composition of the capital stock, and productivity (the interaction between labor and capital). With these diverse economic 

models, CBO produces a range of possible economic effects, reflecting the diversity of assumptions inside the models. 

To the extent practicable, this legislation envisions that CBO will 

use a wide variety of economic models as well as the broad spectrum of empirical economic research and academic scholarship to 

inform the assumptions and parameters within these models (e.g., 

how people’s work hours and employment decisions would respond 

to changes in marginal tax rates) in order to reflect the full range 

of possible economic outcomes resulting from a bill. 

The legislation requires CBO to provide detailed explanations of 

the models used and the bases for its analysis in order to promote 

greater understanding by policymakers and the public of the 

strengths and weaknesses of the analysis provided. To further this 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

transparency, the Committee requests that CBO provide to the 

House and Senate Budget Committees a report within one year of 

enactment outlining the economic models they will be using and 

the procedures they will follow in implementing this bill. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On December 7, 2011, Members of the House Budget Committee 

introduced a comprehensive package of ten legislative budget process reform bills designed to fundamentally reform the budget process. Included in this package was H.R. 3582, the ‘‘Pro-Growth 

Budgeting Act of 2011,’’ introduced by Representative Tom Price 

[R–GA–6]. 

HEARINGS

In 2011, the House Budget Committee held two budget process 

reform hearings to examine the budget process. 

The first hearing, ‘‘The Broken Budget Process: Perspectives 

from Former CBO Directors,’’ was held on September 21, 2011, 

with former CBO Directors Rudolph Penner and Alice Rivlin testifying. 

The second hearing, ‘‘The Broken Budget Process: Perspectives 

From Budget Experts,’’ was held on September 22, 2011, with Philip Joyce (University of Maryland), the Honorable Jim Nussle 

(Chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 2001 through 2007, 

United States House of Representatives) and the Honorable Phil 

Gramm (former United States Senator, 1985–2002) testifying. 

PURPOSE AND NEED

A frequent criticism of CBO is its cost estimates do not capture 

the economic impact of legislation. Since the scoring of legislation 

is done on a ‘‘static’’ basis, it does not take into account the degree 

to which policies might impact the overall economy (i.e. GDP) in a 

positive or negative way. 

According to the traditional scoring method used by CBO and the 

Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), scorekeepers implicitly assume 

that the size of the economy (and therefore key economic variables 

such as labor supply and investment) remain fixed throughout the 

considered budget horizon. Many economists believe that fundamental tax reform, that is to say a broader tax base and lower tax 

rates, would lead to greater labor supply and increased investment, 

which, over time, would have a positive impact on total national 

output. 

Likewise, sharp increases in marginal tax rates would generally 

be expected to lead to lower national output over time. These socalled ‘‘dynamic’’ macroeconomic effects are left out of the traditional cost estimates provided to policymakers. The estimates incorporate certain dynamic behavioral effects at the microeconomic, or 

individual, level but they do not incorporate dynamic macroeconomic effects that are associated with changes in economic performance. 

Some have therefore advocated that CBO should switch from 

‘‘static’’ to ‘‘dynamic’’ scoring in order to provide policymakers with 

a more accurate picture of the economic reality that might result 

from policies under their consideration. Several complications have 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

been identified with such an approach. For instance, there would 

be technical difficulties in generating consistent and objective dynamic scores as these scores would rely heavily on a host of sometimes contentious assumptions about the presumed macroeconomic 

response to a given policy. Static scores typically produce a point 

estimate which then becomes the single, agreed-upon ‘‘cost’’ of legislation for policymakers. To accurately reflect the range of opinion 

about the assumptions in a dynamic score, scorekeepers would likely need to provide a range of cost estimates, which could complicate 

budget enforcement. 

The consensus of the economic community is that traditional 

‘‘static’’ scoring methods leave out essential information about realworld macroeconomic effects that should inform policymakers’ 

thinking about legislation. However, the same community cautions 

that a switch to ‘‘dynamic’’ scoring of a sort that would be objective 

and consistent is not technically feasible at this time. The ‘‘ProGrowth Budgeting Act of 2012’’ seeks to bridge this divide by providing policymakers with a greater amount of information about 

the likely economic impact of policies under their consideration 

while at the same time preserving traditional scoring methods and 

reporting conventions. 

In H. Res. 5 of the 105th (January 7, 1997) Congress amended 

the Rules of the House of Representatives by adding a requirement 

that a macroeconomic analysis be done and included in a report effecting federal revenues. The analysis, though, was only done for 

major legislation so designated by the Majority Leader, after consultation with the Minority Leader, and then requested by the 

chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, the provision was found in 

former clause 7(e) of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, January 6, 1999). 

H. Res. 5 of the 108th Congress (January 7, 2003) amended the 

previous rule by requiring the macroeconomic analysis be done, if 

practicable, rather than only at the request of the chair of the Committee on the Ways and Means. A point of order lies against any 

bill if its report does not include such an analysis or a statement 

explaining why a macroeconomic impact analysis is not calculable. 

This language may be found in section (2)(A) of clause 3 of Rule 

XIII of the House of Representatives for the 112th Congress. 

SECTION BY SECTION

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This section establishes the short title of the bill as the ‘‘ProGrowth Budgeting Act of 2012’’. 

SECTION 2. MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES. 

Subsection (a) amends Title IV of the Congressional Budget Act 

(CBA) by adding at the end of Part A, a new section 407 that requires CBO to perform a macroeconomic impact analysis of ‘‘major 

legislation’’. The macroeconomic impact analysis is a supplement to 

the cost estimates CBO prepares pursuant to section 402 of the 

CBA. The analysis is required to address the 10-year budget window and each of the next three 10-year fiscal-year periods resulting 

in an analysis that covers a total of 40 years. The analysis is required to be conducted relative to a baseline that assumes the continuation of current tax policies. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

Subsection 407(b), as added by this section, provides that the 

macroeconomic impact analysis will describe the potential economic 

impact of the applicable bill or resolution on major economic variables, including real gross domestic product (GDP), business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply. The analysis is also to describe the potential fiscal effects of the bill or resolution, including any estimates of revenue increases or decreases 

resulting from changes in GDP. The analysis should, to the extent 

practicable, use a variety of economic models to reflect the full 

range of possible economic outcomes resulting from the bill. This 

analysis is required to be conducted relative to a baseline that assumes the continuation of current tax policies. Unlike the current 

law baseline, the current policy baseline established in section 3 of 

the Act assumes a more realistic future trajectory of fiscal policy 

as it does not assume the expiration of trillions of dollars of tax relief that is supported by neither the President, his party’s leaders 

in Congress, nor House and Senate Republicans. 

Subsection 407(c) of this section defines the terms used: 

‘‘Macroeconomic impact analysis’’ means estimates of the changes 

in economic output, employment, capital stock, and tax revenues 

expected to result from enactment of the proposal. In addition, it 

is a statement identifying critical assumptions and the source of 

data underling that estimate. 

‘‘Major bill or resolution’’ means any bill or resolution if the gross 

budgetary effects for a fiscal year which an estimate is prepared 

under section 402 are estimated to be greater than 0.25 percent of 

the current projected GDP for any such fiscal year. If CBO estimates under its traditional estimating methodology that the legislation will change direct spending outlays, revenues, deficits, or 

debt by an amount greater than 0.25 percent of GDP in that year, 

then it is a major bill or resolution under this definition. CBO’s determination of whether a bill is major for the purposes of the Act 

relies on nearly 700 formal cost estimates cost estimates CBO routinely performs each year (not to mention the thousands of informal estimates CBO provides). These cost estimates are conducted 

relative to the current law baseline required by statute. Thus legislation extending current tax policy would be measured relative to 

the current law baseline and if the budgetary effects of such legislation exceeded the 0.25 percent of GDP threshold then that legislation would be a major bill or resolution under the Act. 

‘‘Budgetary effect’’ when applied to a major bill or resolution 

means the changes in revenues, outlays, deficit, and debt resulting 

from that measure. 

‘‘Revenue feedback’’ means changes in revenue resulting from 

changes in economic growth as the result of the enactment of any 

major bill or resolution. 

Subsection (b) amends the table of contents for the CBA (section 

1(b)) to reflect the addition of section 407. 

SECTION 3. ADDITIONAL CBO REPORT TO BUDGET COMMITTEES. 

This section amends section 202(e) of the CBA by requiring the 

Director of the CBO to submit, together with the analysis of the 

President’s budget submission, a supplemental budget projection 

that assumes the extension of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

Reconciliation Act of 2001; the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; extension of the ‘‘Alternative Minimum Tax 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

fix’’; and the extension of the estate, gift, and generation-skipping 

transfer tax provisions of title III of the Tax Relief, Unemployment 

Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. 

The section requires the Director of the CBO submit the agency’s 

Long-Term Budget Outlook on or before July 1 of each year and 

that the outlook cover at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years. 

VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report to accompany any bill or resolution of a public character to include the total number of votes 

cast for and against each rollcall vote, on a motion to report and 

any amendments offered to the measure or matter, together with 

the names of those voting for and against. 

Listed below are the actions taken in the Committee on the 

Budget of the House of Representatives on the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012. 

On January 24, 2012, the committee met in open session, a 

quorum being present. 

Chairman Ryan asked unanimous consent to be authorized, consistent with clause 4 of rule XVI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, to declare a recess at any time during the committee 

meeting. 

There was no objection to the unanimous consent request. 

Chairman Ryan asked unanimous consent to dispense with the 

first reading of the bill and the bill be considered as read and open 

to amendment at any point. 

There was no objection to the unanimous consent request. 

The committee adopted and ordered reported the Pro-Growth 

Budgeting Act of 2012. 

The committee took the following votes: 

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Price 

1. The amendment was offered in the nature of a substitute to 

H.R. 3582 and made in order as original text. The bill requires 

CBO to prepare an analysis for all major legislation and of the effect that legislation would have on the U.S. economy. Major legislation is defined as any legislation estimated by the CBO to have a 

budgetary effect of at least 0.25 percent of annual GDP in any year 

within the ten-year budget window. The analysis must cover forty 

years and also include an estimate of the legislation’s potential fiscal impact, including any changes in tax revenues resulting from 

changes in GDP. The macroeconomic impact analysis is supplemental information, in addition to the official congressional cost estimate of the legislation. The bill requires CBO to submit a statement identifying critical assumptions and sources of data underlying the estimate. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash 

2. The amendment requires CBO to specify the economic and 

econometric models used when performing the supplemental analysis. 

The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

3. Mr. Garrett made a motion that the committee report the bill 

as amended and that the bill do pass. 

The motion was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 21 ayes and 11 

noes. 

H.R. 3582 

Name & State Aye No Answer 

Present Name & State Aye No Answer Present 

RYAN (WI) (Chairman) X VAN HOLLEN (MD) (Ranking) X 

GARRETT (NJ) X SCHWARTZ (PA) 

SIMPSON (ID) X KAPTUR (OH) 

CAMPBELL (CA) X DOGGETT (TX) X 

CALVERT (CA) X BLUMENAUER (OR) X 

AKIN (MO) X McCOLLUM (MN) X 

COLE (OK) YARMUTH (KY) X 

PRICE (GA) X PASCRELL (NJ) X 

McCLINTOCK (CA) X HONDA (CA) 

CHAFFETZ (UT) X RYAN (OH) X 

STUTZMAN (IN) X WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (FL) X 

LANKFORD (OK) X MOORE (WI) X 

BLACK (TN) X CASTOR (FL) 

RIBBLE (WI) X SHULER (NC) 

FLORES (TX) X TONKO (NY) X 

MULVANEY (SC) X BASS (CA) X 

HUELSKAMP (KS) X 

YOUNG (IN) X 

AMASH (MI) X 

ROKITA (IN) X 

GUINTA (NH) X 

WOODALL (GA) X 

Mr. Honda, made a unanimous consent request to let the record 

reflect he would have voted no on the rollcall vote. 

There was no objection to the unanimous consent request. 

Mr. Garrett made a motion that, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 

XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Chairman 

be authorized to offer such motions as may be necessary in the 

House to go to conference with the Senate, and staff be authorized 

to make any necessary technical and conforming changes to the 

bill. 

The motion was agreed to without objection. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee on the Budget’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

BUDGET ACT COMPLIANCE

The provisions of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (relating to estimates of new budget authority, 

new spending authority, new credit authority, or increased or decreased revenues or tax expenditures) are not considered applicable. The estimate and comparison required to be prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under clause 3(c)(3) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 

402 and 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 submitted to 

the committee prior to the filing of this report are as follows: 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, January 27, 2012. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, Chairman, 

Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed 

cost estimate for H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. 

The CBO staff contact is Jared Brewster, who can be reached at 226–2880. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

ENCLOSURE: 

cc: Hon. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Ranking Member. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JANUARY 27, 2012

H.R. 3582: PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2012 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on January 24, 2012 

SUMMARY

H.R. 3582 would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a large budgetary effect. The bill would also require CBO to provide supplemental budget projections 

that assume certain tax policies are extended. 

Under H.R. 3582, CBO would be required to provide—to the extent practicable— 

an analysis of the impact on the economy of any bill that would have an estimated 

budgetary effect of greater than 0.25 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in any 

fiscal year. (Currently, that threshold would be about $40 billion, based on GDP of 

about $16 trillion.) The macroeconomic analysis would include the estimated effect 

on revenues and outlays of a change in GDP resulting from the legislation being 

evaluated. Those estimates would have to assume that certain tax policies not currently in CBO’s baseline are extended. Furthermore, CBO would be required to publicly provide the assumptions and models underlying those analyses. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3582 would cost about $2 million over the 

2012–2017 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting H.R. 

3582 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 3582 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3582 is shown in the following table. The 

costs of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars] 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012–2017 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ......................................................... * * * * * * 2 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... * * * * * * 2 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted in fiscal year 2012, 

that the necessary funds will be provided for each year, and that spending will follow historical patterns for similar activities. 

CBO estimates that in order to prepare for the macroeconomic impact studies, as 

called for in H.R. 3582, the agency would probably need two or three additional staff 

members. (The amount of extra personnel resources needed is uncertain, as it would 

depend on how many pieces of legislation with budgetary effects greater than 0.25 

percent of GDP in a fiscal year are considered by the Congress in each year.) In 

addition to taking the lead on new macroeconomic impact studies, the additional 

CBO staff members would be responsible for preparing the descriptions of underlying assumptions and models for the public (as required by the bill). Based on current average costs (including salaries and associated benefits), adding two or three 

staff members could have a small cost in fiscal year 2012 and would cost between 

$300,000 and $500,000 per year beginning in fiscal year 2013, resulting in a sixyear cost of roughly $2 million. 

PAY–AS–YOU–GO CONSIDERATIONS

None. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE–SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 3582 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY

Federal Costs: Jared Brewster. 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle. 

Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objectives of this legislation are to provide for systematic requirements for analysis of the economic impact of major legislation. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the committee finds the constitutional authority for 

this legislation in Article I, section 9, clause 7. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee report incorporates the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to sections 402 and 423 of the Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The committee adopted the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant 

to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Public Law 

104–4). 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 3582 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT OF 1974 

SHORT TITLES; TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1. (a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.— 

Sec. 1. Short titles; table of contents. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE FISCAL PROCEDURES 

PART A—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 407. Macroeconomic impact analysis of major legislation. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

* * * * * * * 

DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS

SEC. 202. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

(e) REPORTS TO BUDGET COMMITTEES.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4)(A) After the President’s budget submission under section 

1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, in addition to the baseline projections, the Director shall submit to the Committees on 

the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate a 

supplemental projection assuming extension of current tax policy for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that year 

with a supplemental projection for the 10 fiscal-year period beginning with that fiscal year, assuming the extension of current 

tax policy. 

(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘‘current tax 

policy’’ means the tax policy in statute as of December 31 of the 

current year assuming— 

(i) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; 

(ii) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Jobs 

and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; 

(iii) the continued application of the alternative minimum tax as in effect for taxable years beginning in 2011 

pursuant to title II of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, assuming that for taxable years beginning after 2011 the exemption amount shall equal— 

(I) the exemption amount for taxable years beginning 

in 2011, as indexed for inflation; or 

(II) if a subsequent law modifies the exemption 

amount for later taxable years, the modified exemption 

amount, as indexed for inflation; and 

(iv) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, gift, and 

generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of title III of the 

Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and 

Job Creation Act of 2010. 

(5) On or before July 1 of each year, the Director shall submit 

to the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives 

and the Senate, the Long-Term Budget Outlook for the fiscal 

year commencing on October 1 of that year and at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE FISCAL 

PROCEDURES 

PART A—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * * 

MACROECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF MAJOR LEGISLATION

SEC. 407. (a) CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.—The Congressional Budget Office shall, to the extent practicable, prepare for each 

major bill or resolution reported by any committee of the House of 

Representatives or the Senate (except the Committee on Appropriations of each House), as a supplement to estimates prepared under 

section 402, a macroeconomic impact analysis of the budgetary efVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:00 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR377P1.XXX HR377P1

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

fects of such bill or resolution for the ten fiscal-year period beginning with the first fiscal year for which an estimate was prepared 

under section 402 and each of the next three ten fiscal-year periods. 

Such estimate shall be predicated upon the supplemental projection 

described in section 202(e)(4). The Director shall submit to such 

committee the macroeconomic impact analysis, together with the 

basis for the analysis. As a supplement to estimates prepared under 

section 402, all such information so submitted shall be included in 

the report accompanying such bill or resolution. 

(b) ECONOMIC IMPACT.—The analysis prepared under subsection 

(a) shall describe the potential economic impact of the applicable 

major bill or resolution on major economic variables, including real 

gross domestic product, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply. The analysis shall also describe the potential fiscal effects of the bill or resolution, including any estimates 

of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in gross domestic product. To the extent practicable, the analysis should use a 

variety of economic models in order to reflect the full range of possible economic outcomes resulting from the bill or resolution. The 

analysis (or a technical appendix to the analysis) shall specify the 

economic and econometric models used, sources of data, relevant 

data transformations, and shall include such explanation as is necessary to make the models comprehensible to academic and public 

policy analysts. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘macroeconomic impact analysis’’ means— 

(A) an estimate of the changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and tax revenues expected to result 

from enactment of the proposal; 

(B) an estimate of revenue feedback expected to result 

from enactment of the proposal; and 

(C) a statement identifying the critical assumptions and 

the source of data underlying that estimate; 

(2) the term ‘‘major bill or resolution’’ means any bill or resolution if the gross budgetary effects of such bill or resolution for 

any fiscal year in the period for which an estimate is prepared 

under section 402 is estimated to be greater than .25 percent of 

the current projected gross domestic product of the United 

States for any such fiscal year; 

(3) the term ‘‘budgetary effect’’, when applied to a major bill 

or resolution, means the changes in revenues, outlays, deficits, 

and debt resulting from that measure; and 

(4) the term ‘‘revenue feedback’’ means changes in revenue resulting from changes in economic growth as the result of the enactment of any major bill or resolution. 

* * * * * * * 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

JURISDICTION

The following letters were exchanged between the House Committee on Rules and the House Committee on the Budget regarding 

committee jurisdiction: 

January 24, 2012. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, Chairman, 

Committee on the Budget, 207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 

20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN RYAN: On January 25, 2012, the Committee on the Budget ordered reported H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011. As you know, the 

Committee on Rules was granted an additional referral upon the bill’s introduction 

pursuant to the Committee’s jurisdiction under rule X of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives over the rules of the House and special orders of business. 

Because of your willingness to consult with my committee regarding this matter, 

I will waive consideration of the bill by the Rules Committee. By agreeing to waive 

its consideration of the bill, the Rules Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over 

H.R. 3582. In addition, the Committee on Rules reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any HouseSenate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment 

to support any request by the Committee on Rules for conferees on H.R. 3582 or 

related legislation. 

I request that you include this letter and your response as part of your committee’s report on the bill and the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. 

Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID DREIER. 

January 25, 2012. 

Hon. DAVID DREIER, Chairman, 

Committee on Rules, H–312, the Capitol, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN DREIER: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 3582, the ProGrowth Budgeting Act of 2012, which the Committee on the Budget ordered reported on January 24, 2012. 

I acknowledge that certain provisions in this legislation are in your committee’s 

jurisdiction. I appreciate your decision to facilitate prompt consideration of the bill 

by the full House. I understand that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Rules is not waiving its jurisdiction. 

Per your request, I will include a copy of our exchange of letters with respect to 

H.R. 3582 in the Congressional Record during House consideration of this bill. We 

appreciate your cooperation and look forward to working with you as this bill moves 

through the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL RYAN, 

Chairman. 

VIEWS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee to provide two days to Members of 

the committee to file Minority, additional, supplemental, or dissenting views and to include such views in the report on legislation 

considered by the committee. The following views were submitted: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(16) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Although there are large differences in budget priorities between 

the parties, we share a common goal of putting the federal budget 

on a fiscally sustainable path. We all want the federal government 

to be efficient, to focus scarce resources where they can do the most 

good, and to not waste a single dime of taxpayer dollars. And we 

want our budget laws to help support those goals. 

Budget process rules and laws can make a difference. For instance, the PAYGO principle that has been in effect at different periods has played a useful role in preventing the deficit from getting 

even worse. But budget process changes will never be a substitute 

for tackling the difficult fiscal questions facing us today. It is not 

that the budget process does not work, it is that Congress has 

failed to follow the rules already on the books. 

The Budget Committee has held two hearings on the general 

topic of budget process reform and the recommendations crossed 

party lines. Former Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, a 

Republican witness, testified that ‘‘It may not be that the budget 

process is broken. It may not be, in other words, that tools are broken, but it may be the fact that the tools are not even being used.’’ 

Similarly, Dr. Philip Joyce, former Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) staff member and a Democratic witness, testified that ‘‘My 

main message is that most of the tools that you need to solve the 

budget problems faced by the country are already in your toolbox. 

If the goal is to deal with the larger fiscal imbalance that faces us, 

the most important thing to do is to make use of them, not search 

for more tools.’’ 

The reason we are not following the existing budget rules is that 

Republicans have shown a lack of political will and an unwillingness to compromise. Until Republicans are willing to support a balanced approach, we will never address the urgent need to put 

Americans back to work and to put our nation on a path toward 

long-term fiscal sustainability. Unfortunately, the Pro-Growth 

Budgeting Act of 2012 does nothing to create a single job, to reduce 

the deficit by a single penny, or to put the country on a fiscally sustainable path. 

It is clear from the bill’s language and approach that it is designed to make it easier to enact deficit-increasing tax cuts. The 

bill requires CBO to produce supplementary estimates of the economic impact of major bills using dynamic scoring, an approach 

that involves more uncertainty and subjectivity than current scoring rules. Former Republican Budget Committee Chairman Jim 

Nussle opposed moving to dynamic scoring, noting that CBO ‘‘generally have done a better job than some of the dynamic score-keeping. That has been part of the challenge of moving to something 

called dynamic scoring is that we have not found anything that 

was any more accurate than the current way.’’ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

The bill focuses on analyzing qualifying legislation’s impact on 

economic growth and employment, while neglecting to mention the 

economic impacts resulting from increased government borrowing 

to finance revenue changes. Existing analysis by CBO suggests 

that the Bush tax cuts would actually reduce growth in the longrun because the negative impacts from increased borrowing outweigh any benefits from lower tax rates. But it is not even clear 

if under this bill an analysis of extending the Bush tax cuts would 

show any economic impact because the bill seems, despite the stated intention of the sponsor, to suggest analyzing impacts against 

a baseline that already assumes the tax cuts are extended. In addition, the bill explicitly exempts measures reported from the Appropriations Committee, meaning there will be no attempt to analyze 

additional economic benefits from investments in education, infrastructure, or any other discretionary spending. 

It is imperative that we get Americans back to work and get our 

fiscal house in order. The bill does nothing to achieve either goal. 

Instead, it pretends that budget process reform in the form of mandating supplemental dynamic scoring is the answer to solve our 

very real problems. 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. MICHAEL M. HONDA. EARL BLUMENAUER. PAUL TONKO. BILL PASCRELL, Jr. 

GWEN MOORE. BETTY MCCOLLUM. ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. KAREN BASS. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(18) 

DISSENTING VIEW 

During the Budget Committee hearing, I referenced the work of 

Art Rolnick, former Senior Vice President and Director of Research 

at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. In March 2003, he 

published a paper with his colleague Rob Grunewald titled ‘‘Early 

Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public 

Return.’’ Their paper applies an economic analysis to argue that 

Minnesota would be best served by increasing public investments 

in quality early childhood development programs. 

Reviewing a study of a Michigan preschool, research found the 

benefit-to-cost ratio was as great as 8-to-1. For every public dollar 

spent in 1960, the participants and community received more than 

$8 dollars in benefits. These benefits were seen across the board: 

children had higher graduation rates, businesses had a more educated workforce, and courts saw a reduction in juvenile delinquency. Investing in early childhood development was a win for the 

child, their families, and the community. 

The advantages cited by Mr. Rolnick and Mr. Grunewald of early 

education make it clear that these programs not only pay for themselves, but are a strong investment in our society’s well-being and 

future. I encourage all my colleagues to review their paper. 

As policymakers, we must understand the broader economic impact of the bills we consider on the House floor. Unfortunately, the 

Pro-Growth Budgeting Act (H.R. 3582) would not provide us with 

that information. H.R. 3582 specifically excludes appropriations 

bills—which provide key investments in our neighborhoods, 

schools, and economy—while highlighting the potential and frequently erroneous impact of reducing federal revenues. Ignoring 

the tangible and quantifiable benefits of direct federal investments 

in our fellow citizens and communities may be a scoring strategy 

and ideological ploy of the Majority, but it will ultimately result in 

very bad public policy. 

BETTY MCCOLLUM. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 24 here HR377A.001
20 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 25 here HR377A.002
21 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 26 here HR377A.003
22 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here HR377A.004
23 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here HR377A.005
24 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here HR377A.006
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 30 here HR377A.007