U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

1 

29–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPT. 113–161 

2013

Part 1 

H.R. 1874, PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING 

ACT OF 2013 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 1874 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

JULY 19, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGseneagle
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

KEN CALVERT, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

AUSTIN SMYTHE, Staff Director 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

H.R. 1874, Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 ..................................................... 1 

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 

Summary of Proposed Changes ....................................................................... 2 

Legislative History ........................................................................................... 3 

Hearings ............................................................................................................ 4 

Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 4 

Section by Section ............................................................................................. 5 

Votes of the Committee .................................................................................... 6 

Committee Oversight Findings ....................................................................... 8 

Budget Act Compliance .................................................................................... 8 

Performance Goals and Objectives .................................................................. 8 

Constitutional Authority Statement ............................................................... 8 

Committee Cost Estimate ................................................................................ 8 

Advisory Committee Statement ...................................................................... 10 

Applicability to the Legislative Branch .......................................................... 10 

Federal Mandates Statement .......................................................................... 10 

Advisory on Earmarks ..................................................................................... 10 

Duplication of Federal Programs .................................................................... 10 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings .............................................................. 10 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ............................. 10 

Views of Committee Members ......................................................................... 12 

Minority Views .................................................................................................. 13 

Appendix: Legislative Text .............................................................................. 17 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–161 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2013 

JULY 19, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

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

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1874] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

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

(H.R. 1874) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation, having 

considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 

and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line numbers 

of the introduced bill) are as follows: 

Page 2, line 17, strike ‘‘Such estimate’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘202(e)(4).’’ on page 2, line 19. 

Page 4, beginning on line 20, strike ‘‘Congressional Budget Act 

of 1974’’ and insert ‘‘Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974’’. 

INTRODUCTION

H.R. 1874, the ‘Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013’ 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

requirement for analysis of the macroeconomic 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 2.2 percent last year, well below the 3.0 percent 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 declined recently, remains unacceptably high 

at 7.6 percent. 

Economists now estimate that with such subpar economic growth 

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

level until 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 Reform 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 economy. 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. 

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., ‘The Economic Impact of S. 744, 

The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013’ (June 2013) and ‘The Economic Impact of 

the President’s 2013 Budget’ (April 2012), Congressional Budget 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

Office) though currently this analysis is done on an ad hoc basis, 

or by request only. A 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 about the 

strengths and weaknesses of the analysis provided. To further this 

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

Legislation in the 112th Congress 

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). On February 2, 2012, H.R. 3582, the ‘Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011,’ passed the House of Representatives by a 242– 

179 vote. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

Legislation in the 113th Congress 

On May 8, 2013, Members of the House Budget Committee introduced a comprehensive package of seven legislative budget process 

reform bills designed to fundamentally reform the budget process. 

Included in this package was H.R. 1874, the ‘Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013,’ 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 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 macroeconomic effects that are associated 

with changes in economic performance. 

Some have therefore advocated that CBO should switch to scoring methodology that incorporates changes in macroeconomic variables 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 been identified with such 

an approach. For instance, there would be technical difficulties in 

generating consistent and objective 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 accuVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:13 Jul 22, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR161P1.XXX HR161P1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

rately reflect the range of opinion about the assumptions in a macroeconomic 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 macroeconomic scoring of a sort that would be objective and consistent is not technically feasible at this time. The 

‘Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013’ 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 committee 

reports for legislation 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 for 

revenue legislation, 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 2013’’. 

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. 

Subsection 407(b) requires the macroeconomic impact analysis to 

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, 

interest rates, and labor supply. The analysis will also describe the 

potential fiscal effects of the bill or resolution, including any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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 or resolution. 

Subsection 407(c) defines terms used in the section: 

‘Macroeconomic impact analysis’ means an estimate of the 

changes in economic output, employment, interest rates, capital 

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

proposal. In addition, it is an estimate of revenue feedback expected to result from enactment of the proposal, and a statement 

identifying critical assumptions and the source of data underlying 

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 is 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. 

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

means the changes in revenues, outlays, deficits, 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 Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 (section 1(b)) to reflect the addition of section 

407. 

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 roll call vote, on a motion to report and 

any amendments offered to the measure or matter, together with 

the names of those voting for and against. 

Listed below are the actions taken in the Committee on the 

Budget of the House of Representatives on the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013. 

On June 19, 2013, 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 2013. 

The committee took the following votes: 

1. A technical amendment offered by Dr. Price correcting a cross 

reference. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

Pursuant to a unanimous consent request made by Chairman 

Ryan, Representative Garrett requested that the record reflect he 

would have voted aye on the voice vote. 

Chairman Ryan asked unanimous consent to leave the vote open 

for an hour in order for all members to have time to record their 

votes. 

There was no objection to the unanimous consent request. 

2. Dr. Price made a motion that the Committee report the bill 

as amended and that the bill do pass. 

The motion was agreed to by a roll call vote of 22 ayes and 11 

noes. 

Name & State Aye No Answer 

Present Name & State Aye No Answer Present 

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

PRICE (GA) X SCHWARTZ (PA) X 

GARRETT (NJ) X YARMUTH (KY) X 

CAMPBELL (CA) X PASCRELL (NJ) 

CALVERT (CA) X RYAN, TIM (OH) 

COLE (OK) X MOORE (WI) 

McCLINTOCK (CA) X CASTOR (FL) 

LANKFORD (OK) X McDERMOTT (WA) X 

BLACK (TN) X LEE (CA) X 

RIBBLE (WI) X CICILLINE (RI) X 

FLORES (TX) X JEFFRIES (NY) X 

ROKITA (IN) X POCAN (WI) X 

WOODALL (GA) X LUJAN GRISHAM (NM) X 

BLACKBURN (TN) X HUFFMAN (CA) X 

NUNNELEE (MS) X CA ́RDENAS (CA) 

RIGELL (VA) X BLUMENAUER (OR) 

HARTZLER (M0) X SCHRADER (OR) X 

WALORSKI (IN) X 

MESSER (IN) X 

RICE (SC) X 

WILLIAMS (TX) X 

DUFFY (WI) X 

Pursuant to a unanimous consent request made by Chairman 

Ryan, Representatives Moore and Pascrell requested that the 

record reflect they would have voted no on the roll call vote. 

3. Dr. Price 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

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. 

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: 

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. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, June 21, 2013. 

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. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013. 

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

The CBO staff contact is Barry Blom, who can be reached at 226-2880. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

ENCLOSURE: 

cc: Hon. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Ranking Member. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JUNE 21, 2013

H.R. 1874: PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2013 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on June 19, 2013 

SUMMARY

H.R. 1874 would require the Congressional Budget Office to provide a macroeconomic impact analysis for bills that are estimated to have a large budgetary effect. 

Under H.R. 1874, 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. The bill also would require CBO to publicly provide the assumptions and 

models underlying those analyses. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1874 would cost about $2 million over the 

2014-2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting H.R. 

1874 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

H.R. 1874 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. 1874 is shown in the following table. The 

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

[By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars] 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014–2018 

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 late in 2013, 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. 1874, 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 would cost between $300,000 and $500,000 per year beginning in fiscal year 2014, resulting in a five-year cost of roughly $2 million. 

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

None. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 1874 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: Barry Blom. 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

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. 1874 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. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 

establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government 

known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program 

that was included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 

111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most 

recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013, does not require any directed rule makings. 

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 AND IMPOUNDMENT 

CONTROL ACT OF 1974 

SHORT TITLES; TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1. (a) SHORT TITLES.—This Act may be cited as the 

‘‘Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974’’. Titles I through IX may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional Budget Act 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

of 1974’’. Parts A and B of title X may be cited as the ‘‘Impoundment Control Act of 1974’’. Part C of title X may be cited as the 

‘‘Line Item Veto Act of 1996’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.— 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE FISCAL PROCEDURES 

PART A—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 407. Macroeconomic impact analysis of major legislation. 

* * * * * * * 

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 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. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

(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. 

* * * * * * * 

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: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(13) 

MINORITY VIEWS ON MARKUP OF H.R. 1874, 

THE PRO-GROWTH BUDGETING ACT OF 2013 

It is surprising that the Committee scheduled a markup of two 

relatively minor budget process reform bills at a time when the 

House of Representatives is in gross violation of the biggest and 

most important statute governing the budget process. Title III of 

the Congressional Act of 1974 (Congressional Budget Process) says 

‘‘on or before April 15th of each year the Congress shall (emphasis 

added) complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget.’’ 

In other words, Congress is to hold a budget conference and resolve 

the differences between the House budget and the Senate budget 

by April 15th. House Republicans are currently blocking all efforts 

to hold that budget conference. 

So it is strange that the Budget Committee would meet to tinker 

in an ill-advised way with some of the budget process at a time 

when this Congress is not doing its job with respect to the major 

responsibility of this Committee: getting a budget to remove the 

uncertainty, to replace the sequester so that we can remove that 

drag on the economy and the disruption that it is causing, and to 

accelerate economic growth. 

For years our Republican colleagues lambasted the Senate for 

failing to have a budget. Yet now it has been more than 90 days 

since the Senate passed a budget and still the Speaker refuses to 

take the next step under the law, which is to appoint conferees. 

That step is necessary to finalize a budget in a transparent way 

so that the public can follow what is going on. 

Democrats have tried fourteen times to get unanimous consent in 

the United States Senate to move to a budget conference. They 

have been blocked every time. Even Senator McCain has described 

the Republican position on this issue as ‘‘insane,’’ as ‘‘incomprehensible,’’ and he is not alone. There is a long list of Republican Senators, and many Republican House members, who have essentially 

expressed the same sentiment. 

The Republican refusal to go to conference on the budget is ironic 

because when the acting head of the Office of Management and 

Budget, Jeff Zients, testified before this committee in April, Republicans roasted him because the President’s budget was 65 days late. 

The President’s budget was late because of the last-minute wrangling over the fiscal cliff agreement in January, which is a valid 

reason. However, now the House of Representatives is more than 

65 days past the deadline for completing a conference on the budget and the Speaker continues to block progress on the budget talks. 

You cannot get a budget out of conference committee if the Speaker 

refuses to appoint conferees. 

There is nothing ‘‘pro-growth’’ about the bill being marked up, 

HR 1874. It does nothing to create one single job, promote economic 

growth, replace the sequester, or reduce the deficit and growing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

debt, which are the nation’s real budgetary problems. Rather, this 

bill would require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to 

produce additional economic impact analyses using dynamic scoring, a methodology favored by Republicans because its subjective 

nature lends itself to the make-believe theory that tax breaks for 

the wealthy pay for themselves due to trickle-down economics. The 

bill is designed to consider the dynamic impact of tax cuts, not 

spending on investments, because it specifically excludes analyzing 

the economic impact of bills reported by the Appropriations Committee, which contain investments that foster economic growth. 

Compounding the bad policy, this bill is unnecessary because CBO 

already provides this type of analysis of major bills upon request. 

When the Committee marked up this bill it also marked up another misguided budget process bill, to which Democrats offered 

three amendments designed to address urgent fiscal issues facing 

the country. Sadly, Republicans decided to use procedural roadblocks to prevent votes on all three of our amendments. 

The first amendment, offered by Rep. Van Hollen, is one he has 

already tried offering seven times at the House Rules Committee 

but was denied a floor vote each time. The amendment will completely replace the sequester for the remainder of fiscal year 2013 

and for all of fiscal year 2014, and will reduce the deficit by an additional $30 billion through a mix of targeted cuts to spending and 

tax expenditures. It will replace the sequester and reduce the deficit—but unlike the current deep and arbitrary cuts, it will do so 

in a way that will not cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, close 

Head Start centers, kick seniors off of Meals on Wheels or furlough 

schoolteachers at bases like Fort Bragg, where the kids of our servicemen and servicewomen are being forced to go without school for 

five days this fall. 

Unfortunately, Republicans refused to allow a vote on the merits 

of this amendment. 

The second amendment, offered by Rep. Moore, calls on the 

Speaker of the House to immediately name budget conferees so 

that we can move forward with the process to adopt a budget resolution conference agreement. This simply requires Congress to follow the budget rules already in place. Current budget law requires 

the Conference Committee to complete action by April 15, but 

Speaker Boehner continues to block progress on the budget by refusing to appoint conferees. 

Unfortunately, Republicans refused to allow a vote on the merits 

of this amendment. 

The third amendment, offered by Rep. McDermott, establishes a 

new House point of order against consideration of a ‘‘deeming resolution’’ when the House and Senate have passed budget resolutions 

and no budget conferees have been named. Resorting to a ‘‘deemer’’ 

to establish budget enforcement when both Houses have produced 

a budget but conferees have not been appointed is admitting defeat 

before the process starts. If both bodies have passed a budget, 

there is no reason to pretend that one of them is adopted—we 

should go to conference and work out a final deal. Adopting a 

deeming resolution before a formal attempt at reaching a conference agreement is putting the cart before the horse, which is exactly what the Republican House has done this year. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

Unfortunately, Republicans refused to allow a vote on the merits 

of this amendment. 

The Budget Committee should not be spending time marking up 

and debating bills that do not even begin to address the most important issues facing our country. We should support efforts to 

produce a final budget resolution and replace the sequester. We 

should allow votes on these big issues, which were addressed by 

the Democratic amendments but not by the underlying bill. It 

seems ironic that the Majority blocked consideration of the Democratic amendments on the grounds of germaneness. What could 

possibly be more germane to the Budget Committee than holding 

a conference to reach agreement on a budget resolution? If replacing the sequester is not germane to the underlying bill being 

marked up, is that not a sign that we are marking up the wrong 

bill? 

This is the Budget Committee; we should be addressing the big 

budget issues facing the country instead of tinkering in an ill-advised way with relatively minor budget process provisions at a time 

when this Congress is not doing its job with respect to the major 

responsibility of this Committee. 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ. 

JOHN YARMUTH. 

JIM MCDERMOTT. 

BILL PASCRELL, Jr. 

GWEN MOORE. 

BARBARA LEE. 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM. 

MARK POCAN. 

TIM RYAN. 

DAVID CICILLINE. 

EARL BLUMENAUER. 

KURT SCHRADER. 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES. 

JARED HUFFMAN. 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS. 

KATHY CASTOR. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(17) 

Appendix: Legislative Text 

The following legislative text incorporates both amendments 

adopted in the Committee on the Budget and technical corrections. 

H.R. 1874 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for 

macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2013 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mrs. 

BLACK, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. COTTON, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. HEN- SARLING, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. 

MULVANEY, Mr. RADEL, Mr. REED, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. ROSS, Mr. 

SCALISE, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOODALL, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. 

BARR, Mr. TERRY, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, 

Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. YODER, and Mr. FORTENBERRY) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for 

macroeconomic analysis of the impact of legislation. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

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

2013’’. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

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. 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, interest rates, 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, interest rates, 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 and Impoundment ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 21:13 Jul 22, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR161P1.XXX HR161P1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

trol 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.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING