The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reviewed the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on May 7, 2012. The two enclosed tables present estimates of the legislation’s effects on direct spending and revenues under two alternative enactment date assumptions. Table 1 provides estimates assuming enactment around October 1, 2012, while Table 2 provides estimates assuming enactment by July 1, 2012, as you directed in your letter to CBO dated April 2, 2012.
Assuming enactment around October 1, 2012, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the reconciliation act would reduce deficits by $15.3 billion over the 2012-2013 period, by $136.9 billion over the 2012-2017 period, and by $328.0 billion over the 2012-2022 period.
Under assumed enactment by July 1, 2012, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would reduce deficits by $19.7 billion over the 2012-2013 period, by $142.0 billion over the 2012-2017 period, and by $333.0 billion over the 2012-2022 period.
The tables present changes in estimated direct spending and revenues, by title. The legislation’s six titles reflect reconciliation recommendations approved by the House Committees on Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means. CBO previously transmitted cost estimates during the week of April 23-27 for the recommendations approved by those committees, all of which received reconciliation instructions under H. Con. Res. 112, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2013, as passed by the House of Representatives on March 29, 2012. The estimates for individual committee recommendations are posted under "cost estimates" on CBO’s Web site.
The composite bill approved by the Committee on the Budget does not make any changes to the recommendations approved by the six committees. The estimates presented in Tables 1 and 2, however, account for the overlap and interactions between some of those committee proposals. Specifically, there are overlapping provisions in the recommendations contained in title II (Energy and Commerce) and title IV (Judiciary) that would impose limits on medical malpractice litigation in state and federal courts. Further, there are interactions between the health care provisions included in title II and title VI (Ways and Means).