Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

February 18, 2020 – March 6, 2023 R46233

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional
March 6, 2023
Budget Process
Megan S. Lynch
When Congress considers legislation, it takes into account the proposal’s potential budgetary
Specialist on Congress and
effects. Although this information may come from numerous sources, Congress generally relies
the Legislative Process
on estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on

Taxation (JCT) when determining whether legislation complies with congressional budgetary
Jane G. Gravelle
rules.
Senior Specialist in
Economic Policy
Generally, CBO and JCT estimates include projections of the budgetary effects that would result

from proposed policy changes, and incorporate anticipated individual behavioral responses to the
policy. The estimates do not typically include the macroeconomic effects of those individual

behavioral responses that would alter gross domestic product (GDP).
In recent decades, however, Congress has sometimes required that JCT and CBO provide estimates that incorporate such
macroeconomic effects (effects on overall economic output—GDP). These estimates are often referred to as dynamic
estimates or dynamic scores.
Proponents of dynamic estimates have argued that such estimates provide a more accurate assessment of budgetary impact
than conventional scoring, and that they can improve Congress’s ability to compare competing policy proposals. Proponents
argue that dynamic estimates are important for the sake of consistency, and that by not including dynamic effects, the
legislative process is biased against policy proposals designed to encourage productive economic activity. Opponents of
dynamic estimates argue that estimates of macroeconomic feedback effects are too uncertain to be relied upon as accurate
projections of budgetary outcomes. Opponents of dynamic estimates have stated that, with assumptions about the behavioral
responses that determine macroeconomic feedback being so uncertain, there is consistency in assuming, for all legislative
proposals, that GDP remains the same, regardless of changes in tax or spending policy.
In most years since 1997, congressional rules have existed that require JCT or CBO to provide dynamic estimates under
certain circumstances. These congressional rules and requirements have varied, sometimes permitting the creation of
dynamic estimates, and sometimes requiring it. During this period, some dynamic estimates provided a range of potential
budgetary outcomes, while some included a point estimate. During this period, dynamic estimates were used only for
informational purposes, as opposed to being used to determine whether Congress was complying with its budgetary rules. In
some cases, published estimates showed wide variation in estimated results depending on the model type and assumptions.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 18 Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

Introduction
When Congress considers legislation, it takes into account the proposal’s potential budgetary
effects. This helps Members to weigh the legislation’s merits, and to consider whether it complies
with the budgetary rules that Congress has created for itself.
While information on the potential budgetary effects of legislation may come from numerous
sources, the authority to determine whether legislation complies with congressional budgetary
rules is given to the House and Senate Budget Committees.1 In this capacity, the budget
committees generally rely on estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and
the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).2
As described in the following section, cost estimates provided by CBO and JCT are guided by
certain requirements that Congress has articulated in different forms. These requirements are not
completely prescriptive, however, and as a result both CBO and JCT adopt practices and
conventions that guide the creation of cost estimates.3 Generally, CBO and JCT estimates include
projections of the budgetary effects that would result from a proposed policy and incorporate
anticipated individual behavioral responses to the policy. The estimates do not typically include
the macroeconomic effects—effects on the overall size of the economy—of those individual
behavioral responses.4 Congress has sometimes
required that JCT and CBO provide estimates that
Conventional estimates generally
incorporate such macroeconomic effects. These
exclude macroeconomic effects
estimates are often referred to as dynamic estimates
If legislation reduced taxes on wages, for example, a
or dynamic scores.
conventional estimate would likely calculate the cost of
This report provides information on the authorities
the legislation based on the amount of wages and the
tax rate reduction. Such a conventional estimate would
and requirements under which cost estimates are
not include the effects on revenues if that change
prepared, as well as a summary of the debate
increased the amount of hours worked, which in turn
surrounding dynamic cost estimates, and previous
would increase taxable income, and provide an
rules and requirements related to dynamic estimates.
offsetting tax increase that would reduce the
conventional cost of the change.
Currently, no congressional rules explicitly require
dynamic estimates, and Congress may examine what

1 Section 312, Congressional Budget Act, as amended, P.L. 93-344 (CBA), titled, Determinations and Points of Order,
states that for the purposes of enforcing budgetary rules, levels of spending and revenues “shall be determined on the
basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as applicable.”
House Rule XXIX, clause 4 clarifies that such determinations may be provided by the chair of the House Budget
Committee. This provision was added to House Rules by H.Res. 5 (112th Congress).
2 Such estimates include information on the legislative proposal’s projected budgetary effects, such as spending,
revenue, and the deficit/surplus. CBO was established in 1974 under Title II of the CBA, JCT was established under the
United States Revenue Act of 1926 and is governed by provisions in 26 U.S.C. Subtitle G. Additional information on
CBO can be found at https://www.cbo.gov/about/overview. Additional information about JCT can be found at
https://www.jct.gov/about-us/overview.html.
3 For example, former CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, in a paper written shortly after his tenure at CBO, stated that
the exclusion of macroeconomic effects within the cost estimates provided by CBO and JCT is “long-standing
convention.” Douglas W. Elmendorf, “Dynamic Scoring”: Why and How to Include Macroeconomic Effects in Budget
Estimates for Legislative Proposals, Brookings Institution, Fall 2015, p. 1. (Hereinafter, “Elmendorf.”)
4 In addition to dynamic estimates expressly requested or required by Congress, a limited number of “conventional”
cost estimates have incorporated macroeconomic effects. For example, estimates for comprehensive immigration
reform legislation included the effects of an increased labor force, because “assuming that those bills would have had
no effect on overall output would have ignored one of the primary effects of the bills and distorted those estimates too
severely.” Elmendorf, p. 96. For a list of such estimates, see Appendix.
Congressional Research Service
1

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

rules changes, if any, are needed in the area of dynamic estimates. This report, therefore, includes
information on options for the creation of dynamic scoring rules, and general considerations for
Congress related to dynamic estimates.
Authorities and Requirements Under Which Cost
Estimates Are Prepared
Cost estimates provided by CBO and JCT are guided, in part, by certain requirements that have
been articulated by Congress in different forms, as described below.
The Congressional Budget Act
The Congressional Budget Act (CBA) requires that CBO prepare cost estimates for all bills
reported from committee, “to the extent practicable.”5 The CBA also requires that (1) CBO rely
on estimates provided by JCT for revenue legislation6 and (2) CBO include in its estimates “the
costs which would be incurred” in carrying out the legislation in the fiscal year in which the
legislation is to become effective, as well as the four following years, together with “the basis for
such estimate.”7
The Baseline
When conducting cost estimates, CBO and JCT measure the budgetary effect of a legislative
proposal in relation to projections of revenue and spending levels that are assumed to occur under
current law, typically referred to as baseline levels. This means that the way a policy is reflected
in the baseline will affect how CBO and JCT estimate a related policy.
In calculating the baseline, CBO makes its own technical and economic assumptions, but the law
generally requires that CBO assume that spending and revenue policies continue or expire based
on what is currently slated to occur in statute.8 For example, CBO’s baseline must assume that
temporary tax cuts such as those enacted in 2017 actually do expire.9 The baseline, therefore,
shows an increase in the level of revenue expected to be collected after the tax cut provisions
expire in law. Therefore, a legislative proposal to continue those tax cut provisions would be
scored as increasing the deficit.
Although baseline calculations generally require that direct (mandatory) spending program levels
reflect what is scheduled to occur in law, important exceptions exist for many direct spending

5 Congressional Budget Act, as amended, P.L. 93-344 (CBA), Section 402. The requirement excludes bills reported
from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
6 Section 402, CBA, Section 201(f) states, “Revenue Estimates: For the purposes of revenue legislation which is
income, estate and gift, excise, and payroll taxes (i.e., Social Security), considered or enacted in any session of
Congress, the Congressional Budget Office shall use exclusively during that session of Congress revenue estimates
provided to it by the Joint Committee on Taxation.”
7 Section 402, CBA also requires “a comparison of the estimates of costs described in the estimate with any available
estimates of costs made by such committee or by any Federal agency, and a description of each method.”
8 Statutory requirements related to the calculation of the baseline can be found in The Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended in Section 257, 2 U.S.C. 907. CBO’s baseline is called the Budget and
Economic Outlook.
9 For more information, see CRS Report R45092, The 2017 Tax Revision (P.L. 115-97): Comparison to 2017 Tax Law,
coordinated by Molly F. Sherlock and Donald J. Marples.
Congressional Research Service
2

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

programs. In particular, any program with estimated current year outlays greater than $50 million
is assumed to continue to operate under the terms of the law at the time of its expiration.10 This
means that some programs that are slated in law to expire are assumed to continue in the baseline.
A legislative proposal that sought to merely continue those expired programs would therefore not
be scored as new spending.
Scorekeeping Guidelines
When creating cost estimates, CBO adheres to scorekeeping guidelines, which are “specific rules
for determining the budgetary effects of legislation.”11 These general guidelines are used by the
scorekeepers—the House and Senate Budget Committees, CBO, and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)—to ensure that each group uses consistent and established practices. The 17
scorekeeping guidelines include general principles, such as a requirement that mandatory
spending provisions included in appropriations bills be counted against the Appropriations
Committee spending allocation, and direction on how asset sales are to be scored.12 The
guidelines have been revised and expanded over the years, and any changes or additions to the
scorekeeping guidelines are first approved by each of the scorekeepers.13
Chamber Rules and the Budget Resolution
Congress sometimes directs the creation and content of cost estimates through chamber rules and
provisions contained in budget resolutions. As described subsequently, House rules have
sometimes explicitly required CBO and JCT to include in cost estimates information on a policy
proposal’s projected macroeconomic feedback effects. Similarly, Congress has also used the
budget resolution to provide direction on how a policy ought to be estimated.14 For example,
budget resolutions have included provisions requiring that transfers from the Treasury’s general
fund to the Highway Trust Fund be counted as new spending.15 Similarly, budget resolutions have
stated that certain policies cannot be counted as offsets, such as Federal Reserve System surpluses
transferred to the Treasury’s general fund, as well as increases or extensions of Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae guarantee fees.16

10 Section 257(b), BBEDCA.
11 These scorekeeping guidelines were originally included in the joint statement of managers that accompanied the
conference report on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.Rept. 105-217). U.S. Congress, House, A Compendium of
Laws and Rules of the Congressional Budget Process, 114th Cong., August 2015, “Introduction,” p. 2. For
Scorekeeping Guidelines, see p. 601, or OMB’s Circular A-11, Appendix A, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/.
12 Scorekeeping guidelines 3 and 15, respectively.
13 According to the House Budget Committee, U.S. Congress, House, A Compendium of Laws and Rules of the
Congressional Budget Process, 114th Cong., August 2015, “Introduction,” p. 2, and the first paragraph of the
Scorekeeping Guidelines, p. 603.
14 CBA, Section 301(b)(4) states that the budget resolution may include “other matters, and require such other
procedures, relating to the budget, as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of” the CBA.
15 For example, see the budget resolution for FY2016 (S.Con.Res. 11, 114th Congress, Section 3302) and the budget
resolution for FY2018 (H.Con.Res. 71, 115th Congress, Section 5110).
16 For example, see the budget resolution for FY2018 (H.Con.Res. 71, 115th Congress, Sections 5111 and 5112,
respectively).
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 18 Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

The Budget Committees and Tax Committees
Congressional committees may also shape the content or creation of cost estimates. The House
and Senate Budget Committees have jurisdiction over CBO, and the CBA specifies that CBO’s
“primary duty and function” is to assist the budget committees.17 Oversight of CBO, as well as
the creation and content of cost estimates is, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the House and
Senate Budget Committees, and the budget committees provide related guidance to CBO. For the
JCT, the creation and content of its estimates may be shaped by the committee itself, or by
guidance or assumptions of the tax committees—the House Committee on Ways and Means and
the Senate Committee on Finance.
Overview of Dynamic Estimating
Generally, CBO and JCT estimates include projections of the budgetary effects that would result
from proposed policy changes, and incorporate anticipated individual behavioral responses to the
policy. The estimates do not typically include the macroeconomic effects of those individual
behavioral responses (such as changes in labor supply and the capital stock) that would alter
GDP.18 For example, if an increase in the corporate tax rate caused corporations to use more debt,
conventional estimates would take into account the loss of revenue since the returns from debt are
taxed more lightly than the returns from equity, and this loss in revenue would offset the revenue
gain calculated by multiplying the change in the tax rate by corporate income. The conventional
estimate would not take into account the lost revenue from a reduction in income if the rate
increase caused a decline in investment, which affects production. These estimates without
macroeconomic effects are sometimes imprecisely referred to as “static,” but are referred to in
this report as conventional estimates because they take into account many behavioral responses.19
In contrast, a dynamic score aims to account for legislation’s macroeconomic effect, by
incorporating changes to (1) aggregate demand for goods and services to increase output in an
underemployed economy and/or (2) aggregate supply of goods and services (supply-side effects)
to increase potential output. For example, dynamic scoring can include fiscal stimulus effects that
increase aggregate demand. These effects occur when the economy is underemployed (for
example, during and after a recession), and increased spending either by the government or from
taxpayers after a tax cut can expand the economy through multiplier effects and cause output to
move closer to potential output. These effects are referred to subsequently as demand-side effects.
Supply-side effects occur if potential output is altered due to changes in investment or savings
that increase the capital stock, labor supply, or productivity. The crowding-out (or -in) effect
occurs when an increase (or decrease) in the deficit reduces (or increases) funds available for
private investment and hence reduces (or increases) the capital stock.

17 CBA, Section 202(a).
18 In addition to dynamic estimates expressly requested or required by Congress, a limited number of “conventional”
cost estimates have incorporated macroeconomic effects. For example, certain estimates for comprehensive
immigration reform legislation included the effects of an increased labor force, because “assuming that those bills
would have had no effect on overall output would have ignored one of the primary effects of the bills and distorted
those estimates too severely.” Elmendorf, p. 96. Estimates have not included other direct macroeconomic effects, such
as the effect on interest rates from increased government borrowing. For a list of such estimates, see Appendix.
19 Estimates of tax and spending policies take into account behavioral effects, such as changes in spending due to excise
taxes and their effects on prices or changes in realizations as a result of changes in capital gains taxes.
Congressional Research Service
4

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

Increased Interest in Dynamic Estimating
Congressional interest in dynamic estimating has increased in recent decades. This interest may
be attributed to the increase in the number of House and Senate rules restricting budgetary
legislation.20 Because bills and resolutions are expected to comply with these congressional rules,
estimates of a measure’s fiscal impact arguably become more important. Interest in dynamic
scoring is also likely related to recent advancements in economic analysis and economic
modeling that make estimating macroeconomic feedback effects possible.
Views on Dynamic Estimating
Both proponents and opponents of dynamic estimating point to accuracy and consistency as their
primary objectives. Some have suggested that dynamic scoring is useful, but only under certain
circumstances.
Arguments for Dynamic Estimating
Arguments in favor of dynamic scoring include the view that dynamic scoring provides a more
accurate assessment of budgetary impact than conventional scoring, particularly for some types of
legislative proposals, and that conventional estimating methods produce a projection that does not
reflect the actual expected impact on revenues. Under this argument, dynamic scoring makes use
of all available information, and excluding macroeconomic feedback effects “amounts to
throwing away valuable information.”21 It has also been argued that including macroeconomic
effects can improve Congress’s ability to compare competing policy proposals.22
Arguments in favor of dynamic scoring state that these estimates are required for the sake of
consistency, especially for large legislative packages that would likely affect the economy. As
stated above, a legislative proposal’s budgetary impact is measured against a baseline, and that
baseline takes into account macroeconomic assumptions. It is, therefore, argued that certain
legislative proposals should also take into account economic assumptions. If such legislation
were to be enacted into law, CBO would then build that policy into its baseline, and would have
to make assumptions about the macroeconomic feedback effects that would be expected to occur
under those policies. It is only consistent, the argument goes, to use macroeconomic feedback
effects in the initial estimate of the legislation as well.23
Advocates for dynamic scoring also state that not using a dynamic approach to measure the
impact of policy changes biases the legislative process against policy proposals that are designed
to encourage productive economic activity.24 Some have argued that under conventional

20 Many congressional rules and restrictions were first established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Budgetary
restrictions were also included in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings; P.L. 99-177), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA; P.L. 101-508), the Budget Enforcement Act of
1997 (BEA of 1997; P.L. 105-33), the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Statutory PAYGO Act; P.L. 111-139),
and the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25).
21 Alan J. Auerbach, “Dynamic Scoring: An Introduction to the Issues,” University of California, Berkeley, Department
of Economics, 2005, p. 2. (Hereinafter, “Auerbach.”)
22 Donald B. Marron, Thoughts on Dynamic Scoring of Fiscal Policies, Tax Policy Center, June 2016, p. 1.
(Hereinafter, “Marron.”)
23 CBO also routinely conducts dynamic analysis for proposals that are not necessarily enacted into law (such as
proposed budget paths or the President’s budget), alternative fiscal scenarios (for example, in the Long-Term Budget
Outlook reports), and various illustrative spending and revenue policies.
24 Dita Aisyah, “Four Reasons Why We Need Dynamic Scoring,” Tax Foundation, August 5, 2015,
Congressional Research Service
5

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

estimating methods, the impact of a cut in the marginal tax rates, for example, is viewed (through
the lens of budgetary outcomes) less favorably than it should be.25
It has also been argued that, methodologically, the production of quality dynamic estimates is
now possible due to technical advances in modeling and analysis, and an increase in evidence
showing public responses to policy changes.26 Some have pointed out that both CBO and JCT are
capable of producing dynamic estimates,27 and JCT staff have stated that, with regard to
macroeconomic estimates, “we think we have been producing reasonable results for over a
decade (though we welcome comments and discussion).”28
Arguments Against Dynamic Estimating
Likewise, arguments against dynamic estimates also point to concerns about accuracy and
consistency. Those who oppose the use of dynamic scoring argue that projected macroeconomic
feedback effects are too uncertain to be relied upon as accurate projections of budgetary
outcomes.
Projecting macroeconomic feedback effects requires economic modeling, and it has been said that
“because reasonable people can disagree about what model, and what parameters of that model,
are best, the results from dynamic scoring will always be controversial.”29 Previous
macroeconomic analyses by CBO and JCT have yielded a range of estimates depending on what
type of model is used and the underlying behavioral assumptions in each model.30
With assumptions about the behavioral responses that determine macroeconomic feedback being
so uncertain, it has been argued that there is consistency in assuming, for all legislative proposals,
that GDP remains the same, regardless of changes in tax or spending policy.31
Arguments against dynamic scoring often point to potential problems with cost estimating in
general, but note that under dynamic scoring these vulnerabilities may be exacerbated. For
example, as mentioned above, all cost estimates are inherently uncertain. Dynamic estimates are
always subject to more uncertainty, even for relatively simple tax changes, because of the
uncertainty of taxpayer responses (such as consumer spending and labor supply). In contrast,

https://taxfoundation.org/four-reasons-why-we-need-dynamic-scoring/; and Zachary Karabell, “A Dynamic World
Demands Dynamic Scoring,” Politico Magazine, January 14, 2015, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/
dynamic-scoring-114237.
25 Auerbach.
26 Auerbach.
27 Elmendorf; Marron.
28 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, Macroeconomic Analysis at the Joint Committee on Taxation and the
Mechanics of its Implementation, Outline of Presentation of the Joint Committee Staff at the Brookings Institution
Program “Dynamic Scoring: Now What?,” prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 114th Cong.,
January 26, 2015, available at https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4687.
29 N. Gregory Mankiw, “Dynamic Scoring in Congress Is Defensible but Slippery,” New York Times, February 28,
2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/upshot/a-slippery-new-rule-for-gauging-fiscal-policy.html. (Hereinafter,
“Mankiw.”)
30 See the discussion of models and estimates in CRS Report R43381, Dynamic Scoring for Tax Legislation: A Review
of Models, by Jane G. Gravelle. For example, in estimating the effects of the Tax Reform Act of 2014, the JCT used
two different types of models and different assumptions within those models that produced a range of estimates from
0.1% to 1.6%, depending on model and assumptions within the model. See Joint Committee on Taxation,
Macroeconomic Analysis of the “Tax Reform Act of 2014,” JCS-22-14, February 26, 2014, at https://www.jct.gov/
publications.html?func=startdown&id=4564.
31 Mankiw.
Congressional Research Service
6

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

many conventional estimates (such as the effect of rate changes in the tax code or changes to
exemptions and deductions) may be estimated quite precisely because data are readily available
on income levels and family characteristics.32
Similarly, while cost estimates generally might always have the potential to be perceived as
subject to manipulation by political forces, it has been argued that this possibility is exacerbated
with dynamic scoring, which might damage the budget process’s credibility.33
Arguments for Dynamic Estimating Under Certain Circumstances
Some have argued that dynamic estimates would be useful for Congress but only in certain
situations. It has been argued that dynamic estimates should be provided by CBO and JCT but
only for “major proposals” such as those that have a large estimated budgetary impact or those
designated as “major” by either majority or minority committee and/or chamber leadership.
(Recent dynamic scoring rules [discussed below] used a similar threshold.) It has been stated that
neither CBO nor JCT have sufficient time or staff to carefully estimate the macroeconomic effects
of every proposal for which they must conduct an estimate.34 (To this end, it has also been argued
that dynamic estimates should be conducted only when CBO and JCT have the time and tools
necessary to conduct the analysis.)
Further, it has been stated that dynamic estimates should be conducted for spending as well as
revenue proposals because each have the potential to produce notable macroeconomic effects.35
(As stated below, in some years dynamic estimates were required only for revenue legislation.) It
has also been argued that dynamic estimates should be provided for discretionary spending as
well as direct/mandatory spending.36 As stated below, even when dynamic scoring requirements
applied to spending as well as revenue, these rules excluded discretionary spending legislation
(i.e., appropriations legislation).
Previous Dynamic Scoring Rules and Requirements
As described below, rules related to dynamic estimates have varied over the years.
1997-2002
In January 1997, the House first adopted a rule that explicitly mentioned dynamic estimates. It
stated that a dynamic estimate provided by JCT could be included in the committee report
accompanying “major tax legislation” (as designated by the House majority leader), but that the
estimate could be used “for informational purposes only.” The rule, which was in effect through
2002, defined a dynamic estimate as “a projection based in any part on assumptions concerning

32 For some specific proposals, conventional estimates are quite uncertain, such as the effect of changing capital gains
tax rates (because of uncertainty about realization responses) or when a new feature is introduced and there is not
previous data (such as the effect of the repatriation holiday).
33 Paul N. Van de Water and Chye-Ching Huang, Budget and Tax Plans Should Not Rely on “Dynamic Scoring,”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 17, 2014, https://www.cbpp.org/research/budget-and-tax-plans-
should-not-rely-on-dynamic-scoring.
34 Elmendorf, p. 93.
35 Elmendorf; Marron.
36 Elmendorf, p. 93.
Congressional Research Service
7

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

probable effects of macroeconomic feedback” and required that the estimate include a statement
identifying all such assumptions.37
When the new rule was adopted in January 1997, JCT staff hosted a symposium entitled
“Modeling the Macroeconomic Consequences of Tax Policy.” According to JCT
This symposium presented the results of a year-long modeling experiment by economists
noted for their work in developing models of the U.S. economy. The purpose of this
experiment was to explore the predictions of a variety of models regarding the
macroeconomic feedback effects of major changes in the U.S. tax code with a focus on
evaluating the feasibility of using these types of results to enhance the U.S. budgeting
process.38
2003-2014
In January 2003, the House replaced its previous dynamic scoring rule with a more extensive
rule, which remained in effect through 2014.39 Whereas the previous rule had permitted a
dynamic estimate to be included in a committee report, the new House rule required it. Further,
whereas the previous rule had applied only to bills designated as “major tax legislation,” the new
rule applied to any bill reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means that proposed to
amend the Internal Revenue Code. The new rule also omitted the previous provision that
explicitly required the estimate be “used for informational purposes only.”
The new rule no longer used the term “dynamic estimate” but instead used the term
“macroeconomic impact analysis,” which the rule defined as an estimate provided by JCT “of the
changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and tax revenues expected to result from
enactment of the proposal.” The estimate was required to identify critical assumptions and the
source of data underlying that estimate.
Around the time of the rule’s adoption in 2003, the JCT released a report providing an overview
of the joint committee’s efforts to model macroeconomic effects of proposed tax legislation.40
While varying in length and detail, the macroeconomic analyses provided by JCT during this

37 This rule was in effect from 1997 to 2002 (105th Congress-107th Congress). (It was originally House Rule XIII clause
7(e) [105th Congress] but was recodified as House Rule XIII clause 3(h)(2) in the 106th Congress.) The rule stated that
the committee report from the House Committee on Ways and Means accompanying “major tax legislation” (as
designated by the majority leader after consultation with the minority leader) could include a dynamic estimate of
changes in federal revenues expected to result from enactment of the legislation. The rules stated that JCT should
render a dynamic estimate “only in response to a timely request from the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means (after consultation with the ranking minority member of the committee).”
38 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation, Joint Committee on Taxation Tax Modeling Project and 1997 Tax
Symposium Papers, committee print, 105th Cong., November 20, 1997. This project followed increased interest in
macroeconomic modeling that included congressional hearings and the creation of a revenue-estimating advisory
board. For more information on this history, and the history of macroeconomic analysis at the JCT, see Randall D.
Weiss and James W. Wetzler, “The Evolution of Economics at the joint Committee on Taxation, Part 2,” Tax Notes,
May 23, 2016.
39 Rule XIII, clause 3(h)(2) (108th Congress-113th Congress). The rule stated that it was not in order to consider in the
House a bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on Ways and Means that proposed to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 unless (1) the report included a macroeconomic impact analysis, (2) the report included a
statement from JCT explaining why a macroeconomic impact analysis was not calculable, or (3) the chair of the
Committee on Ways and Means caused a macroeconomic impact analysis to be printed in the Congressional Record
before consideration of the legislation.
40 U.S. Congress, Joint, Overview of the Work of the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation to Model the
Macroeconomic Effects of Proposed Tax Legislation to Comply with House Rules XII 3(h)(2), prepared by the staff of
the Joint Committee on Taxation, 108th Cong., December 22, 2003, available at https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?
func=startdown&id=2940.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 7 Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

period (2003-2014) included information on the expected macroeconomic effects (if any) of the
proposed legislation, provided general conclusions, and sometimes provided a range of potential
budgetary effects using different models and different assumptions within models. The analyses
did not include a specific dollar amount or point estimate. These analyses also reported details of
the effects on different aspects of the economy (such as labor supply, output, and capital stock). In
addition, the estimates often referenced the model(s) used for the analysis.
During this time, the JCT used four different types of models. Crucially, all of these models
incorporated the impact of supply-side effects in their dynamic estimates. Only the MEG and GI
model also incorporated demand-side effects (for a brief discussion of these effects, see
“Overview of Dynamic Estimating”). The models are briefly described below:
1. MEG: a macroeconomic growth (MEG) model that incorporates aggregate
demand effects similar to those in most economic forecasting models and
includes labor and savings responses. (This model falls into a class of steady state
growth models called Solow models, discussed below.)
2. OLG: an overlapping generations (OLG) life-cycle model that assumes that
generations of individuals optimize choices of consumption and leisure over a
lifetime and cannot include demand-side effects.
3. GI: a Global Insight (GI) private econometric forecasting model that captures
demand-side effects.
4. DSGE: a domestic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model that assumes
that individuals optimize over infinite lifetimes and often does not, without
modification, capture aggregate demand effects to decrease unemployment.41
In the past, the JCT also had different behavioral responses within models (e.g., a high and low
labor supply response in MEG).
During this period, the JCT prepared five published macroeconomic estimates of legislative
proposals: one (in 2003, for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, P.L. 108-27) that
used MEG, GI, and OLG; two that used MEG only (the 2009 economic stimulus legislation and
the 2009 Affordable Care Act); and two that used MEG and OLG (a bill extending bonus
depreciation in 2014 and the Tax Reform Act of 2014).42 Several bills were examined but were
too small for a macroeconomic analysis. The GI model was dropped after 2003, and the DSGE
model was introduced in 2006. That model did not allow unemployment. None of the published
analyses of legislation used the DSGE model. The JCT also provided illustrative analysis for
different types of proposals on two occasions: to compare individual rate cuts, corporate rate cuts,
and increases in the personal exemption in 2005 and to examine a revenue-neutral tax cut that
broadened the individual income tax base and lowered the rate in 2006. The first analysis used
MEG and the second used the MEG, OLG, and DSGE models.

41 See Joint Committee on Taxation, Overview of Joint Committee Macroeconomic Modeling, April 23, 2018, at
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5092. Also, see CRS Report R43381, Dynamic Scoring for
Tax Legislation: A Review of Models, by Jane G. Gravelle for a more detailed discussion of the types of models and
effects. The DSGE model is also a form of the Ramsey or infinite horizon model (sometimes also called a real business
cycle model) but is modified by having some agents in the model liquidity constrained and unable to lend or borrow,
uncertainty, and by having sticky prices. Without certain modifications, Ramsey type models cannot be affected by
demand-side effects. The current OLG model does not have an infinite horizon but a lifetime one, but has not been
modified to permit demand-side effects.
42 These analyses can be found at Joint Committee on Taxation, Overview of Joint Committee Macroeconomic
Modeling, April 23, 2018, at https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5092.
Congressional Research Service
9

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

2015-2018
During this period, dynamic estimates were required to be conducted for revenue and mandatory
spending legislation that met the threshold of “major legislation” under both a House rule and
budget resolutions.
House Rule
In 2015, the House replaced its former rule with House Rule XIII, clause 8. The new rule, which
was in effect through 2018, expanded the type of legislation for which dynamic estimates were to
be conducted to include not just revenue proposals, but also mandatory spending proposals.43 This
meant that the rule now required dynamic estimates from CBO as well as JCT, but only for
“major legislation,” which was defined as (1) legislation that would be projected (in a
conventional cost estimate) to cause an annual gross budgetary effect of at least 0.25% of
projected U.S. GDP,44 (2) mandatory spending legislation designated as major legislation by the
chair of the House Budget Committee, or (3) revenue legislation designated as major legislation
by the chair or vice chair of the JCT. Although not explicitly stated in the new rule, the rules
change resulted in dynamic estimates, for the first time, including a point estimate (i.e., a specific
dollar amount) as opposed to a range of potential budgetary outcomes.
Under this rule, the estimates would incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in economic
output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such
legislation. The estimate was, to the extent practicable, to include a qualitative assessment of the
long-term budgetary effects and macroeconomic variables of such legislation, and to identify
critical assumptions and the source of data underlying the estimate.45
Budget Resolutions
During this period, Congress also used the budget resolution to direct CBO and JCT to provide
dynamic estimates. The budget resolutions agreed to by both the House and Senate for fiscal
years 2016 and 2018 included provisions that required dynamic estimates in both houses for the
114th and 115th Congresses.46
The requirements included in these provisions were similar to the House rule described above.
The dynamic estimates were required to be conducted for revenue and mandatory spending
legislation that met the threshold of “major legislation.” Major legislation was again described as
legislation that would be projected (in a conventional cost estimate) to cause an annual gross

43 The rule did not apply to discretionary spending legislation, which is under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.
44 Specifically, the rule states “any bill or joint resolution for which an estimate is required to be prepared pursuant to
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and that causes a gross budgetary effect (before incorporating
macroeconomic effects) in any fiscal year over the years of the most recently agreed to budget resolution on the budget
equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the current projected gross domestic product of the United States for that year.”
The rule defined budgetary effect as “changes in revenues, outlays, and deficits.”
45 Specifically, the rule states that the estimate requires information on the effects “of such legislation in the 20-fiscal
year period beginning after the last fiscal year of the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget that
set forth appropriate levels required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.”
46 The FY2016 budget resolution, agreed to in May 2015, S.Con.Res. 11 (114th Congress), Section 3112. Honest
accounting: cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate macroeconomic effects (applied to both Senate and
House); and the FY2018 budget resolution, agreed to in October of 2017, H.Con.Res. 71 (115th Congress), Section
4107. Honest accounting: cost estimates for major legislation to incorporate macroeconomic effects (applied to Senate)
and Section 5107. Estimates of macroeconomic effects of major legislation (applied to House).
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 12 Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

budgetary effect of at least 0.25% of projected U.S. GDP, but this version of the rule excluded
any legislation that met this criterion as a result of a timing shift.47 To accommodate the Senate’s
constitutional authority to approve treaties, the rule expanded the definition of major legislation to
include any treaty with an impact of at least $15 billion in that fiscal year. And the definition of
major legislation also included any mandatory spending legislation designated as major
legislation by the chair of the House or Senate Budget Committee, or revenue legislation
designated as major legislation by the chair or vice chair of the JCT.
As with the House rule, these estimates were required to incorporate the budgetary effects of
changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables
resulting from such legislation. The estimate was, to the extent practicable, to include a
qualitative assessment of the long-term budgetary effects and macroeconomic variables of such
legislation, and to identify critical assumptions and the source of data underlying the estimate.48
For the Senate provision applying to the 115th Congress, the estimates were to include the
distributional effects across income categories, to the extent practicable.
Although not explicitly stated in the provisions, the requirements resulted in dynamic estimates,
including a point estimate (i.e., a specific dollar amount) as opposed to a range of potential
budgetary outcomes. Although the House and Senate Budget Committees might presumably have
used such point estimates as the official estimate for the purposes of budget enforcement (under
the authority granted by Section 312 of the CBA), the Senate Budget Committee communicated
that the dynamic estimates would be used for informational purposes only.49
Estimating Practices
Estimates during the 2015-2018 period included a point estimate that provided a conventional
estimate and the macroeconomic effects for a 10-year period. The JCT currently uses the three
models previously discussed: MEG, OLG, and DSGE. In the past, the JCT also had different
behavioral responses within models (e.g., a high and low labor supply response in MEG).50 In

47 A timing shift was defined as (1) provisions that cause a delay of the date on which outlays flowing from direct
spending would otherwise occur from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year, or (2) provisions that cause an acceleration
of the date on which revenues would otherwise occur from one fiscal year to the prior fiscal year.
48 Specifically, the provisions state that the estimate requires information on the effects “of such legislation in the 20-
fiscal year period beginning after the last fiscal year of the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget
that set forth appropriate levels required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.”
49 The Senate Budget Committee communicated that the estimates would be used only for informational purposes in
two separate committee prints. First, a committee print for the budget resolution for FY2016, S.Con.Res. 11, states,
“Provides Honest Accounting Estimates. The resolution directs CBO to produce, alongside its conventional estimates,
cost estimates that incorporate the economic effects of major policy changes. These estimates would serve
informational purposes.” U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget,
FY2016, S.Prt. 114-14, 114th Cong., 1st sess., March 2015, p. 24. Next, a committee print for a budget resolution for
FY2018 that was reported from the Senate Budget Committee, S.Con.Res. 25, states “Reactivates Dynamic Scoring
Authority. This resolution directs the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to incorporate
the budgetary effects of macroeconomic variables when each produces estimates of major legislation. These estimates
will be used for informational purposes only. These more accurate assessments will help guide the Senate in its work
both as a legislative body and financial steward of the United States. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget,
Concurrent resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, S.Prt. 115-19, 115th Cong., 1st sess., October 2017, 115-19,
p. 24.
50 See Joint Committee on Taxation, Overview of Joint Committee Macroeconomic Modeling, JCX-33-18, April 23,
2018, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5092. Also, see CRS Report R43381, Dynamic
Scoring for Tax Legislation: A Review of Models, by Jane G. Gravelle for a more detailed discussion of the types of
models. Additional details in footnote 41.
Congressional Research Service
11

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

2014, JCT had only the MEG and OLG models; the first introduction of the DSGE model in a
published estimate for legislation was in 2017. Discussions of the DSGE model in 2018
suggested that it now allowed unemployment. CBO has two models that assume full employment.
One is a long-term model that CBO refers to as a “Solow growth model” and the other is a life
cycle model. (The Solow growth model is similar to the long-term growth aspects of MEG and
the life cycle model is an OLG model. The similarities reflect the way they incorporate behavioral
responses.)51 The Solow model has stronger and weaker labor supply responses and the OLG
model has alternative assumptions about how the model was to be closed and whether local or
worldwide interest rates predominated. CBO also has a separate short-term model that can
capture fiscal stimulus that reduces unemployment, while JCT combines short-term and long-
term effects in its MEG and DSGE models.
Beginning in 2003, JCT and CBO presented results from more than one model and with different
behavioral assumptions within models.52 Beginning in 2015, when point estimates were provided,
the JCT reported a single estimate that was a weighted average of the various models’ point
estimates. JCT provided information on the weights used, but did not separately report the
different models’ point estimates when more than one model was used. Also, in contrast to past
informational macroeconomic modeling, there was no reported sensitivity analysis within the
models (sensitivity analysis effectively measures how macroeconomic effects may change under
different behavioral assumptions, such as how much a change in tax rates affects labor supply). In
the four analyses that JCT reported on, in the first two cases (in 2015) only MEG, with the high
rather than the low labor response assumption, was used.53 In the case of the major 2017 tax
revision, MEG was weighted at 40%, OLG at 40%, and DSGE at 20%.54 In the final case, MEG
was weighted at 40% and OLG and DSGE were each weighted at 30%.55 CBO and JCT jointly
estimated the effects of some bills associated with repeal of the Affordable Care Act or
modification of that act (JCT estimated certain tax provisions and CBO estimated the other
provisions). JCT used the MEG model and CBO used its Solow model along with its short-term
model, each with a single set of labor supply responses.56

51 OLG models incorporate savings and labor supply effects by introducing explicit optimizing functions for allocating
consumption and leisure over time that generate, depending on many parameters, labor and savings responses (as does
the DSGE model used by JCT). Solow models and the MEG model incorporate behavioral responses for savings and
labor supply that reflect direct statistical estimates of these responses.
52 For the initial analyses, see Joint Committee on Taxation, Macroeconomic Analysis for the Jobs and Growth
Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003, May 8, 2003, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=1191; and
Congressional Budget Office, How CBO Analyzed the Macroeconomic Effects of the President’s Budget, July 2003,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/44xx/doc4454/07-28-presidentsbudget.pdf.
53 Joint Committee on Taxation, A Report to the Congressional Budget Office of the Macroeconomic Effects of the
“Tax Relief Extension Act of 2015,” as Ordered to be Reported by the Senate Committee on Finance, JCX-107-15,
August 4, 2015, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5092; and Joint Committee on Taxation, A
Report to the Congressional Budget Office of the Macroeconomic Effects of H.R. 2510, “Bonus Depreciation Modified
and made Permanent,” As Ordered to be Reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means, JCS-134-15, October
27, 2015, https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4844.
54 Joint Committee on Taxation, Macroeconomic Analysis of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1, The “Tax Cuts and
Jobs Act,” JCX-69-17, December 22, 2017, at https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5055.
55 Joint Committee on Taxation, Macroeconomic Analysis of H.R. 6760, The “Protecting Family and Small Business
Tax Cuts Act of 2018,” as Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, JCX-79-18, September 26, 2018,
https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5145.
56 Congressional Budget Office, Budgetary and Economic Effects of Repealing the Affordable Care Act, June 2015,
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50252-effectsofacarepeal.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

CBO had been preparing macroeconomic analyses of the President’s budget since 2003, reporting
the results from multiple models and assumptions. When CBO prepared its standard analysis of
the President’s budget in 2015 and 2016, the analysis continued to report the results from both
models, along with estimates of immigration’s effect on productivity, with sensitivity analysis
within the models leading to 16 different estimated effects on GDP over 10 years ranging from
0.7% to 2.8%.57 CBO has not prepared any subsequent macroeconomic analyses of the
President’s budget.
2019-2022
During this period, for the first time in decades, there were no explicit congressional rules or
requirements that pertained specifically to the preparation or use of dynamic estimates, although
committees and Members maintained the ability to request that CBO or JCT provide dynamic
estimates for certain policies or legislative proposals.
Beginning in 2023
At the beginning of the 115th Congress, the House reinstated into Rule XIII the requirement that
certain cost estimates provided by CBO and JCT incorporate macroeconomic effects.58
As was the case between 2015 and 2018, the requirement requires such dynamic estimates only
for “major legislation,” which is defined as (1) legislation that would be projected (in a
conventional cost estimate) to cause an annual gross budgetary effect of at least 0.25% of
projected U.S. GDP, (2) mandatory spending legislation designated as major legislation by the
chair of the House Budget Committee, or (3) revenue legislation designated as major legislation
by the chair or vice chair of the JCT.
Under this requirement, dynamic estimates are to incorporate the budgetary effects of changes in
economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from
such legislation. The estimate is, to the extent practicable, to include a qualitative assessment of
the long-term budgetary effects and macroeconomic variables of such legislation and to identify
critical assumptions and the source of data underlying the estimate.
Considerations for Congress
Currently, only House rules explicitly require the preparation of dynamic estimates and only for a
narrow set of legislation.
At some point Congress may choose to reexamine explicit rules related to dynamic estimates.
These requirements could be articulated as formal direction from the committees of jurisdiction
or leadership to JCT and CBO. Alternatively, these requirements might be included in chamber
rules or in budget resolutions, or might be included in a standing order or in statute.
If Congress were to reexamine explicit rules related to dynamic estimates, it may choose to
consider many facets of such potential rules:
 Will there be a threshold for the creation of such estimates? Should the proposal
also allow the legislation to be designated as “major” by either majority or

57 Congressional Budget Office, A Macroeconomic Analysis of the President’s 2017 Budget, June 6, 2016,
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51625.
58 For more information, see CRS Report R47384, Changes to House Rules Affecting the Congressional Budget
Process Included in H.Res. 5 (118th Congress), by James V. Saturno and Megan S. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
13

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

minority committee and/or chamber leadership? Should CBO and JCT provide
dynamic estimates only for “major proposals,” such as those that have a large
estimated budgetary impact? If so, what would be the threshold for major? Past
and current rules have used a measure equal to 0.25% of GDP. Should the effect
on GDP be measured by the entire legislation, or should it be triggered by an
individual provision or group of provisions (such as revenue raisers or revenue
losers in a tax bill) that met the threshold? The latter approach would capture
revenue-neutral legislation that nevertheless made significant changes that could
affect GDP.
 Should rules for dynamic estimates apply to spending as well as revenue
proposals since both have the potential to cause notable macroeconomic
effects?59 And if the rule applies to spending, should it apply to discretionary
spending that varies from the baseline as well as direct/mandatory spending?
 What information should be included in such estimates? Practices prior to 2015
provided insight into how sensitive the results were to choice of model and
parameters. The JCT has also continued to present information on the parameters
of its models that lead to behavioral responses.60 The justification for assigning
model weights might also be addressed in more detail.
 Should dynamic estimates be used only for informational purposes, or also for
enforcement purposes? Dynamic estimates allow Congress to weigh the merits of
the legislation—should they also be used to determine whether the legislation
complies with the budgetary rules that Congress has created for itself?
 Should additional resources be provided to CBO and JCT so that they might
develop greater capacity for providing dynamic estimates?

59 Elmendorf; Marron.
60 Recent estimates have not provided sufficient information to derive labor supply elasticities from the DSGE model to
compare to other models. The functional form of the utility function, which is often separable in consumption and
leisure, needs to be provided, as well as the intertemporal and intratemporal parameters. For a discussion of the
translation of these parameters into elasticities in prior models, see CRS Report R43381, Dynamic Scoring for Tax
Legislation: A Review of Models, by Jane G. Gravelle.
Congressional Research Service
14

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

Appendix. Dynamic Estimates Conducted by the
Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional
Budget Office
Table A-1. Point Estimates Provided by JCT and/or CBO Incorporating
Macroeconomic Effects
Legislation
Estimate
S. 1946 (114th Congress): Tax
Staff of the JCT, A Report to the Congressional Budget Office of the Macroeconomic
Relief Extension Act of 2015
Effects of the “Tax Relief Extension Act of 2015,” as Ordered to Be Reported by the
Senate Committee on Finance, JCX-107-15, August 4, 2015, https://www.jct.gov/
publications/2015/jcx-107-15/.
CBO, Tax Relief Extension Act of 2015, August 4, 2015, https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/50704.
H.R. 2510 (114th Congress): To
Staff of the JCT, A Report to the Congressional Budget Office of the
amend the Internal Revenue
Macroeconomic Effects of H.R. 2510, “Bonus Depreciation Modified and Made
Code of 1986 to modify and
Permanent,” as Ordered to Be Reported by the House Committee on Ways
make permanent bonus
and Means, JCX-134-15, October 27, 2015, https://www.jct.gov/publications/
depreciation
2015/jcx-134-15/.
CBO, H.R. 2510, A Bill to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Modify and
Make Permanent Bonus Depreciation, August 4, 2015, https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/50939.
H.R. 3762 (114th Congress):
CBO, H.R. 3762, Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of
Restoring Americans’
2015, October 20, 2015, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50918.
Healthcare Freedom
Reconciliation Act of 2015
H.R. 1 (115th Congress): Tax
Staff of the JCT, Macroeconomic Analysis of the Conference Agreement for H.R. 1,
Cuts and Jobs Act
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, JCX-69-17, December 22, 2017, https://www.jct.gov/
publications/2017/jcx-69-17/.a
H.R. 6760 (115th Congress):
Staff of the JCT, Macroeconomic Analysis of H.R. 6760, the “Protecting Family and
Protecting Family and Small
Small Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018,” as Reported by the Committee on Ways and
Business Tax Cuts Act of 2018
Means, JCX-79-18, September 26, 2018, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2018/
jcx-79-18/.
Sources: Congress.gov; the websites of the JCT and CBO.
Notes: As described above, point estimates (as opposed to a range estimate) were required for dynamic
estimates under the House and Senate rules in place between 2015 and 2018. This list may not be
comprehensive. It includes only those cost estimates that have been made public. In addition, it includes only
dynamic estimates that were provided for specific legislation and does not include macroeconomic analysis that
may have been provided for general polices or proposals (such as Congressional Budget Office, Effects of Physical
Infrastructure Spending on the Economy and the Budget Under Two Illustrative Scenarios, August 2021).
a. Additional point estimates incorporating macroeconomic effects of H.R. 1 were issued for previous versions
of the legislation. See the JCT website for more information.

Congressional Research Service
15

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

Table A-2. Estimates Provided by JCT Showing a Range of Possible Macroeconomic
Outcomes
Legislation
Estimate
H.R. 2 (108th Congress): Jobs
Staff of the JCT, Macroeconomic Analysis of H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth
and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003, May 8, 2003, https://www.jct.gov/publications/
Reconciliation Act of 2003
2003/macroeconomic-analysis-for-the-jobs-and-growth-rec/.
H.R. 598 (111th Congress): To
Staff of the JCT, Macroeconomic Analysis for the American Recovery and
provide for a portion of the
Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009, January 27, 2009, https://www.jct.gov/
economic recovery package
publications/2009/macroeconomic-analysis-for-the-american-recovery-a/.
relating to revenue measures,
unemployment, and health
H.R. 3200 (111th Congress):
Staff of the JCT, Macroeconomic Analysis for America’s Affordable Health Choices
America’s Affordable Health
Act of 2009, October 14, 2009, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2009/
Choices Act of 2009
macroeconomic-analysis-for-america’s-affordable-he/.
H.R. 1 (113th Congress): Tax
Staff of the JCT, Macroeconomic Analysis of the “Tax Reform Act of 2014,” JCX-
Reform Act of 2014
22-14, February 26, 2014, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2014/jcx-22-14/.
H.R. 4718 (113th Congress): To
Staff of the JCT, Macroeconomic Analysis for Bonus Depreciation Modified and
amend the Internal Revenue
Made Permanent, July 15, 2014, https://www.jct.gov/publications/2014/
Code of 1986 to modify and
macroeconomic-analysis-for-bonus-depreciation-modi/.
make permanent bonus
depreciation
Sources: Congress.gov; the website of the JCT.
Notes: As described above, rules requiring dynamic point estimates (as opposed to a range estimate) were not
required until 2015. This list may not be comprehensive. It includes only those cost estimates that have been
made public.
Table A-3. Estimates Provided by CBO That Include Partial Dynamic Estimates
Legislation
Estimate
S. 2611 (109th Congress):
CBO, S. 2611, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, May 16, 2006,
Comprehensive Immigration
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/17779.
Reform Act of 2006
S. 744 (113th Congress): Border
CBO, S. 744, Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Security, Economic
Modernization Act, June 18, 2013, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44225.
Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act
H.R. 2131 (113th Congress):
CBO, H.R. 2131, Supplying Knowledge-based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM
SKILLS Visa Act
Visas Act (SKILLS Visa Act), March 12, 2014, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/
45179.
Source: Congress.gov; the website of the CBO.
Notes: This list may not be comprehensive. It includes only those cost estimates that have been made public.
CBO has described the decision to include partial dynamic estimates. For example, in the cost estimate related
to H.R. 2131, it stated, “Fol owing the long-standing convention of not incorporating macroeconomic effects in
cost estimates—a practice that has been fol owed in the Congressional budget process since it was established in
1974—cost estimates produced by CBO and JCT typically reflect the assumption that macroeconomic variables
such as gross domestic product (GDP) and employment remain fixed at the values they are projected to reach
under current law. However, because H.R. 2131 would materially increase the size of the U.S. labor force, CBO
and JCT relaxed that assumption by incorporating in this cost estimate their projections of the direct effects of
the bil on the U.S. population, employment, and taxable compensation.”
Congressional Research Service
16

Dynamic Scoring in the Congressional Budget Process

Author Information

Megan S. Lynch
Jane G. Gravelle
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process
Senior Specialist in Economic Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46233 · VERSION 8 · UPDATED
17

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 6, 2023

HTML · PDF

1% changed

May. 24, 2022

HTML · PDF

1% changed

Aug. 2, 2021

HTML · PDF

9% changed