Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

113th Congress                                            Rept. 113-161
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     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


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�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]  


                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                     PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM PRICE, Georgia                   CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey              Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California            ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California              JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           TIM RYAN, Ohio
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
BILL FLORES, Texas                   BARBARA LEE, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana                 DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ROB WOODALL, Georgia                 HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi           MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            JARED HUFFMAN, California
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             TONY CARDENAS, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
LUKE MESSER, Indiana                 KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TOM RICE, South Carolina
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin

                           Professional Staff

                     Austin Smythe, Staff Director
                Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director
                            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


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 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 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 private-sector 
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.

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 
accurately 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 
real-world 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 
``Pro-Growth 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 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.
    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 &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Aye     No     Present     State      Aye     No    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN,         X                       VAN                  X
 PAUL                                  HOLLEN
 (WI)                                  (MD)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE         X                       SCHWARTZ             X
 (GA)                                  (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT       X                       YARMUTH              X
 (NJ)                                  (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL      X                       PASCRELL
 (CA)                                  (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT       X                       RYAN, TIM
 (CA)                                  (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK)     X                       MOORE
                                       (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC     X                       CASTOR
 K (CA)                                (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD      X                       McDERMOTT            X
 (OK)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK         X                       LEE (CA)             X
 (TN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE        X                       CICILLINE            X
 (WI)                                  (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES        X                       JEFFRIES             X
 (TX)                                  (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA        X                       POCAN                X
 (IN)                                  (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL       X                       LUJAN                X
 (GA)                                  GRISHAM
                                       (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN     X                       HUFFMAN              X
 (TN)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE      X                       CARDENAS
 (MS)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL        X                       BLUMENAUE
 (VA)                                  R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER      X                       SCHRADER             X
 (M0)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI      X                       .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER        X            .........
 (IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC)     X            .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS      X            .........
 (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY         X
 (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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.
               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.

                      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 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;
                    (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:
                 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 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.
    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 Cardenas.
                                   Kathy Castor.
                       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. Hensarling, 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 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 
Control 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.''.