HB2666, titled the CBO Scoring Accountability Act, would amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide ongoing follow-up analyses for major legislation after it becomes law. For the first 10 years after enactment of a qualifying bill or joint resolution, the CBO Director would have to publish an annual analysis of how the law is actually performing, including updated estimates of costs and federal revenue effects and a comparison against the original score or prior estimates.
The bill also requires the CBO to report to Congress when actual costs or revenue effects differ from earlier estimates by at least 10 percent, explaining the cause of the discrepancy. It defines “major legislation” as legislation projected to affect mandatory spending or federal receipts by at least 0.25 percent of projected U.S. GDP for that year. The bill further directs federal agencies to provide information and assistance to the CBO as needed and makes a clerical update to the statute’s table of contents.
Impact
If enacted, HB2666 would add a new Section 407 to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, creating a statutory requirement for post-enactment CBO review of major legislation. This would expand the CBO’s role from providing pre-enactment cost estimates to producing annual retrospective analyses for a decade, with formal reporting to Congress on significant deviations from prior estimates. The bill would affect federal budget scoring practices, congressional oversight, and the administrative obligations of agencies that must assist the CBO.
Sentiment
The available context suggests a generally supportive or reform-oriented sentiment, as the bill was introduced by a sizable bipartisan group of House members and referred to the House Committee on the Budget without recorded opposition or vote history in the provided materials. The bill’s title and structure indicate an emphasis on transparency, accountability, and improving the accuracy of budget projections over time. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no evidence in the record here of organized opposition or amendment debate.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the scope and burden of the new reporting requirement. Supporters would likely view the bill as a transparency measure that helps Congress and the public evaluate whether CBO estimates match real-world outcomes, while critics may argue it adds workload for the CBO and federal agencies, could require difficult attribution of fiscal effects, and may create disputes over how to measure discrepancies and causation. Another possible issue is the bill’s definition of “major legislation,” which ties coverage to a GDP-based threshold and could be debated as too broad or too narrow.