H.R. 3582 Amendments: Amendments to H.R. 3582—Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012

H.R. 3582

Amendments to H.R. 3582—Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012

Sponsor
Rep. Tom Price

Date
February 2, 2012 (112th Congress, 2nd Session)

Staff Contact
Communications

Floor Situation

On Thursday, February 2, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011, subject to a rule.  The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Budget Committee. The rule also makes eight amendments in order, each of which is debatable for up to 10 minutes. The eight amendments made in order under the rule are summarized below. The complete Legislative Digest for H.R. 3582 is available here.

Amendments

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Peters (D-MI): The amendment would add the following findings to the bill: 

  • “On January 8, 2003, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that President Bush believed that the tax cut package enacted in 2001 and expanded in 2003 would ‘create additional revenues for the Federal Government and pay for itself.’
  • “Before the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were enacted, the Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising surpluses, from 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2001 to 5.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2011, with the Federal Government operating debt free by 2009.
  • “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have added over $2 trillion to budget deficits from 2002–2011. 
  • “Despite signing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 into law, President George W. Bush’s administration had, according to the Wall Street Journal, ‘the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records’ in 1939.
  • “From 2001 to 2009, gross domestic product grew at the slowest pace for any eight-year span since 1953.
  • “Median household income declined during the Bush Administration for the first time since 1967, when this data began to be tracked.”

Amendment No. 2—Rep. Connolly (D-VA): The amendment would extend the requirement for macroeconomic analysis of major legislation to bills reported by the Appropriations Committees of each Chamber, which is not required under the bill.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Walz (D-MN): The amendment would include “interest rates” among the variables that the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to estimate. Under the bill as reported, the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to include the effect of the legislation on real gross domestic product, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Fudge (D-OH): The amendment would include “income inequality” among the variables that the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to estimate. Under the bill as reported, the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to include the effect of the legislation on real gross domestic product, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): The amendment would include “the potential impact, if any, on HUBZones” among the variables that the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to estimate. The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) HUBZone program provides federal contracting preferences and grants for qualified small businesses located in distressed geographic areas. Under the bill as reported, the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to include the effect of the legislation on real gross domestic product, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Quigley (D-IL): The amendment would require the CBO Director to create and maintain a website with the domain name TaxpayerReceipt.gov. The website would be required to include a calculator where taxpayers could enter their annual income and receive an estimate of the amount of their projected contribution to, or receipt from, any applicable major bill or resolution over ten years.

Amendment No. 7—Rep. Flake (R-AZ): The amendment would require that CBO prepare macroeconomic assessments of any legislation with any one-year estimated budgetary impact of more than $5 billion, as opposed to 0.25 percent of GPD (about $38 billion in 2011).

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): The amendment would amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require that CBO, when preparing cost estimates for each bill, also include an estimate of the number of jobs which would be “created, sustained, or lost” as a result of the legislation. The estimate would be required to cover the first five fiscal years after the bill becomes effective and, to the extent practicable, include state and regional jobs estimates as well.