H.R. 1874: Pro-Growth Budgeting Act

H.R. 1874

Pro-Growth Budgeting Act

Rep. Tom Price

April 4, 2014 (113th Congress, 2nd Session)

Staff Contact

Floor Situation

On Friday, April 4, 2014, the House will consider H.R. 1874, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, under a structured rule. H.R. 1874 was introduced on May 8, 2013 by Representative Tom Price (R-GA) and has 49 cosponsors.  H.R. 1874 was marked up on June 19, 2013 by the House Committee on the Budget and was favorably reported by a vote of 22-11.[1]

Bill Summary

Legislation has significant effects on economic growth.  However, currently there is no systematic requirement to provide the “macroeconomic impact of legislation.”[1]  According to the House Committee on the Budget, “it is clear that one of the key drags on the economy is the enormous amount of policy uncertainty generated by Washington, which makes business unable to predict their future costs, tax liability and profits, making them wary about investing, expanding, and hiring.”[2]  

CBO has previously 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’ 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.”[3] It is important to note that this bill was introduced in the 112th Congress as H.R. 3582 and passed the House with unanimous Republican support (242-179).[4]

[1] See id, p.2.

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] See id, p. 3.


H.R. 1874 requires CBO to produce a supplemental macroeconomic analysis for major legislation. Major legislation is defined in the bill as legislation causing a gross change in revenue, outlays, deficits, or debt in excess of .25 percent of GDP within a ten-year window.


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.[1]


1)         Rep. Connolly (D-VA) Amendment #6 – Amendment subjects Congressional appropriations bills to dynamic scoring, and it changes the threshold to trigger such scoring to $1 billion.

2)         Rep. Israel (D-NY) Amendment #3 – Amendment adds the impact on state and local governments to the parameters that CBO must analyze in a supplemental analysis under this bill.

3)         Rep. Cicilline (D-RI) Amendment #1 – Amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to include jobs impact statements (estimates of the number of jobs which would be created, sustained, or lost in carrying out such bill or resolution) using the CBO's existing analytical principles and procedures, for "major bills or resolutions" as defined in H.R. 1874. 

4)         Rep. Bishop (D-NY) Amendment #4 – Amendment requires the Congressional Budget Office to review the accuracy of the macroeconomic impact analysis prepared for any enacted bill or joint resolution.

5)         Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX) Amendment #7 – Amendment requires CBO to include as part of their macroeconomic analysis estimates of the potential impact on HUB ZONE areas as defined by the Small Business Act.

Additional Information

For questions or further information contact the GOP Conference at 5-5107.