PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 15, 2011
Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011 - Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to prepare for each major bill or resolution reported by any congressional committee (except the congressional appropriations committees), as a supplement to CBO cost estimates, a macroeconomic impact analysis of the costs of such legislation for: (1) the period for which the cost estimate is prepared, and (2) the 10-fiscal year period beginning with the first fiscal year after the last fiscal year for which such estimate was prepared and each of the 2 next 10-fiscal year periods.
Defines "major bill or resolution" as any bill or resolution whose budgetary effects, for any fiscal year in the period for which a CBO cost estimate is prepared, is estimated to be greater than .25% of the current projected U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) for that fiscal year.
Requires the analysis to describe: (1) the potential economic impact of the bill or resolution on major economic variables, including real GDP, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply; and (2) the potential fiscal effects of the measure, including any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in GDP.
People & committees
Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH] · R–NH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1996 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1996 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1996 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1996 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.