CRS Updates Report on Legislative Actions to Reverse ACA

Congress remains deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Since the ACA's enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law.

Much of this legislative activity has taken place in the House, which reverted to Republican control in 2011. The Republican-led House has passed numerous ACA-related bills, including legislation that would repeal the entire law. There has been less debate in the Senate, which remained under Democratic control through 2014. Most of the House-passed ACA legislation has not been considered in the Senate. Now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, opponents of the ACA see new opportunities to pass and send to the President legislation that would change the law.

The House-passed legislation includes stand-alone bills as well as provisions in broader, often unrelated measures that would (1) repeal the ACA in its entirety and, in some cases, replace it with new law; (2) repeal, or by amendment restrict or otherwise limit, specific provisions in the ACA; (3) eliminate appropriations provided by the ACA and rescind all unobligated funds; (4) replace the ACA's mandatory appropriations with authorizations of (discretionary) appropriations, and rescind all unobligated funds; or (5) block or otherwise delay implementation of specific ACA provisions.

Republican leaders also have used a special legislative process known as budget reconciliation in an effort to repeal parts of the ACA. On October 23, 2015, the House passed a reconciliation bill that would repeal several provisions of the ACA. The House-passed bill (H.R. 3762) was taken up by the Senate, which substituted its own more extensive set of ACA repeal provisions. The Senate approved H.R. 3762, as amended, on December 3, 2015. The House subsequently approved the Senate-passed bill. President Obama vetoed H.R. 3762 on January 8, 2016.

A few bills to amend specific elements of the ACA that attracted sufficiently broad and bipartisan support have been approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law. During the 111th Congress, a number of clarifications and technical adjustments to the ACA were enacted. Since then, several more substantive ACA amendments have become law. For example, Congress repealed Title VIII of the ACA -- the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act -- which would have established a voluntary, long-term care insurance program to pay for community-based services and supports for individuals with functional limitations. Lawmakers also repealed a tax-filing provision (IRS Form 1099) that had been included in the ACA, and they reduced the annual appropriation to the Prevention and Public Health Fund over the period FY2013-FY2021 by a total of $6.25 billion.

In addition to considering ACA repeal or amendment in authorizing legislation, some lawmakers have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate funding for the ACA's implementation and address other concerns they have with the law. A companion report, CRS Report R44100, Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016), summarizes the ACA-related language added to annual appropriations legislation by congressional appropriators since the ACA was signed into law.

                               Contents

Congress remains deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010.¹ Since the ACA's enactment, lawmakers opposed to specific provisions in the ACA or the entire law have repeatedly debated its implementation and considered bills to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the law.

Much of this legislative activity has taken place in the House, which reverted to Republican control in 2011. The Republican-led House has passed numerous ACA-related bills, including legislation that would repeal the entire law. There has been less debate in the Senate, which remained under Democratic control through 2014. Most of the House-passed ACA legislation has not been considered in the Senate. However, a few bills to amend specific elements of the ACA that attracted sufficiently broad and bipartisan support have been approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law. Now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, opponents of the ACA see new opportunities to pass and send to the President Obama legislation that would change the law.

Republican leaders also have used a special legislative process known as budget reconciliation in an effort to repeal parts of the ACA. Pursuant to the Congressional Budget Act (Budget Act), budget reconciliation allows Congress to use expedited procedures when considering legislation that would bring existing spending, revenue, and debt limit laws into compliance with the fiscal priorities set out in the annual budget resolution. Using the reconciliation process to try and dismantle the ACA appeals to opponents of the law because reconciliation bills are not subject to filibuster and can be passed with a simple majority vote in the Senate.

On October 23, 2015, the House passed a reconciliation bill (H.R. 3762) containing provisions submitted by three committees -- Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Workforce -- pursuant to reconciliation instructions included in the FY2016 budget resolution. This bill would have repealed several provisions of the ACA, among other things.²

The House-passed bill was taken up by the Senate, which substituted its own more extensive set of ACA repeal provisions. These provisions were submitted by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in accordance with the instructions in the budget resolution. The Senate approved H.R. 3762, as amended, on December 3, 2015.³ The House approved the Senate-passed bill on January 6, 2016, and the measure was sent to President Obama. On January 8, 2016, the President vetoed H.R. 3762.

This report summarizes legislative actions taken to repeal, defund, delay, or otherwise amend the ACA since it was enacted. The information is presented in three tables. Table 1 summarizes the ACA changes that have been signed into law. Table 2 lists all the House-passed ACA bills. Table 3 summarizes the ACA provisions in the vetoed reconciliation bill. While a detailed examination of the ACA itself is beyond the scope of this report, a brief overview of the ACA's core provisions and its impact on federal spending is provided as context for the material presented in the tables.⁴ This report is updated periodically to reflect legislative and other developments.

In addition to considering ACA repeal or amendment in authorizing legislation, lawmakers have used the annual appropriations process in an effort to eliminate funding for ACA implementation and address other concerns they have with the law. A companion report, CRS Report R44100, Use of the Annual Appropriations Process to Block Implementation of the Affordable Care Act (FY2011-FY2016), summarizes the ACA-related language added to annual appropriations legislation by congressional appropriators since the ACA was signed into law.

A Brief Overview of the ACA

The ACA made significant changes to the way U.S. health care is financed, organized, and delivered. Its primary goal is to increase access to affordable health care for the medically uninsured and underinsured. To that end, the law included a complex set of interconnected provisions that address the private health insurance market.

First, the ACA requires health insurers to comply with a set of federal standards ("market reforms") to ensure that individuals may purchase, keep, and renew coverage that provides a minimum level of benefits and consumer protections, with some limits on costs. Second, the law establishes competitive private health insurance exchanges (also known as marketplaces) through which individuals and small employers are able to compare and enroll in qualified health plans.

Exchanges operate in every state and the District of Columbia. They are administered by states or by the federal government, or through a partnership between the state and federal governments. Qualified individuals who enroll in exchange plans may receive financial assistance if they meet income and certain other requirements. Refundable tax credits are available to individuals and families with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to help pay the insurance premium. The premium tax credits are available upon enrollment so that eligible individuals and families can choose to receive the subsidy immediately rather than wait until they file taxes the following year. In addition, certain individuals and families receiving the tax credit may be eligible for cost-sharing subsidies to reduce their out-of-pocket costs (e.g., deductibles, copays) when receiving health services. Small employers with no more than 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) may also use the exchanges to purchase insurance coverage for their employees and may qualify for a tax credit to help cover the cost of providing that coverage.

In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in King v. Burwell ruled that the premium tax credits are available to all qualified individuals who enroll in exchange plans and meet the necessary income and other requirements, regardless of whether the exchange is administered by the state or the federal government.⁵

Third, the ACA's "individual mandate" requires most U.S. citizens and legal residents to obtain coverage. Those who remain uninsured may have to pay a penalty unless they qualify for an exemption. The individual mandate is intended to encourage healthy individuals to participate in the insurance market and not wait until they get sick to buy coverage. Finally, the law's "employer mandate" requires employers with 50 or more FTEs to offer health coverage that meets affordability and adequacy standards for their full-time employees and those workers' dependents. Employers who do not comply with these requirements may be subject to a tax if one or more of their employees purchase coverage through an exchange and receive a subsidy. The purpose of the ACA's employer requirements is to encourage larger firms to maintain affordable and adequate coverage for their employees.

The ACA coupled its private insurance provisions with the requirement that states expand their Medicaid programs to cover all nonelderly individuals with incomes up to 138% FPL. Those with higher incomes, up to 400% FPL, may be eligible to get subsidized coverage through an exchange. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius found the Medicaid expansion to be unconstitutionally coercive and prohibited the federal government from enforcing it.⁶ The Court's decision made Medicaid expansion optional for states.

In addition to expanding access to insurance coverage, the ACA contains hundreds of other provisions that address health care access, costs, and quality. They include new programs to test alternative ways of delivering and paying for health care. The law also includes new taxes and fees as well as adjustments to Medicare payments to hospitals and other health care providers. These provisions are designed to offset the federal spending on exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion.

ACA's Impact on Federal Spending

Implementation of the ACA is affecting both mandatory and discretionary spending. Mandatory spending -- also referred to as direct spending -- is controlled through authorizing laws.⁷ It includes spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Authorizing laws may provide permanent or temporary appropriations or other forms of budget authority for such spending. When the authorizing law contains no appropriations, mandatory programs may be funded through the annual appropriations process. This is sometimes referred to as "appropriated mandatory" or "appropriated entitlement" spending.⁸Discretionary spending is both controlled and funded through the annual appropriations process. It typically covers the routine costs of running federal agencies and offices, including wages and salaries.⁹

Federal spending on ACA implementation can be grouped into three categories: (1) mandatory spending on expanding insurance coverage, (2) mandatory spending on other programs, and (3) discretionary spending. Each of these categories is briefly discussed below.

Mandatory Spending on Expanding Insurance Coverage

This category accounts for most of the federal spending under the ACA. It includes the exchange subsidies (i.e., premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies), the federal government's share of the costs of Medicaid expansion, and tax credits for small employers. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) projected that this and other ACA mandatory spending (discussed in the second category, below) would be more than offset by (1) revenues from the ACA's new taxes and fees, and (2) savings from the law's adjustments to Medicare provider payments that are projected to slow the rate of growth of Medicare spending.¹⁰

Mandatory Spending on Other Programs

The ACA authorized new Medicare and Medicaid spending. For example, it phased out the Medicare prescription drug benefit "donut hole" through a combination of subsidies and manufacturer discounts, and it increased Medicare payments for primary care services and medical education. The ACA also included numerous appropriations that are providing billions of dollars of mandatory funding to support grant programs and other activities authorized by the law.¹¹ For example, the law funded temporary insurance programs for targeted groups prior to the exchanges becoming operational, and it provided funding for grants to states to plan and establish health insurance exchanges. The ACA included a permanent appropriation, available for 10-year periods, for the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), to test and implement innovative health care payment and service delivery models.

In addition, the ACA created four special funds and appropriated amounts to each one. First, the Community Health Center Fund (CHCF) has provided almost $11 billion over five years (FY2011-FY2015) for the federal health centers program and the National Health Service Corps.¹² Second, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) is supporting patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research through FY2019 with a mix of appropriations, fees on health plans, and transfers from the Medicare trust funds. Third, the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF), for which the ACA provided a permanent annual appropriation, is supporting prevention, wellness, and other public health-related programs and activities. Finally, the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund (HIRIF), for which the ACA appropriated $1 billion, helped pay for the initial administrative costs of implementing the law.

Discretionary Spending

The ACA is affecting discretionary spending in two ways. First, the law created numerous new discretionary grant programs and provided each of them with an authorization of appropriations. To date, however, few of these programs have received discretionary funding through annual appropriations acts, though several of them have been supported with mandatory funds from the PPHF.¹³ Second, the two agencies primarily responsible for implementing the ACA's provisions to expand insurance coverage -- CMS's Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) -- are incurring significant costs in connection with administering and enforcing the law. Both agencies requested increases in funding in each of their past four budget submissions (i.e., FY2013-FY2016) to help pay for ACA implementation. But congressional appropriators have not provided either agency with any additional discretionary funds. CMS instead has relied on discretionary fund transfers from other accounts, amounts from the Nonrecurring Expenses Fund (NEF),¹⁴ and ACA mandatory funds (i.e., HIRIF, PPHF) to support its ACA implementation activities. CMS also has transferred HIRIF funds to the IRS.

ACA Provisions in Authorization Legislation

Enacted Laws

Table 1 summarizes the authorizing legislation to amend the ACA that has been enacted since the ACA became law in March 2010. Each table entry includes the public law number and date of enactment, the original bill number and sponsor, and a brief description and explanation of the change(s) made to the ACA. The laws are listed in reverse chronological order, beginning with the most recently enacted legislation and extending back to the first measure signed into law following enactment of the ACA and the accompanying package of amendments in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA).¹⁵

During the 111th Congress, when the House was still under Democratic control, a number of clarifications and technical adjustments to the law were enacted. In the 112th and 113th Congresses, several more substantive ACA amendments that garnered bipartisan support were signed into law. For example, Congress repealed Title VIII of the ACA -- the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act -- which would have established a voluntary, long-term care insurance program to pay for community-based services and supports for individuals with functional limitations. Lawmakers also repealed a tax-filing provision (IRS Form 1099) that had been included in the ACA, and they reduced the PPHF annual appropriation over the period FY2013-FY2021 by a total of $6.25 billion.

In compiling Table 1, CRS made decisions about which laws -- or specific provisions in a particular law -- to include, and which ones to leave out. CRS elected to include only those provisions that made changes (including funding extensions or rescissions) to new programs and activities first authorized and funded by the ACA. CRS excluded provisions addressing established programs and activities that predate the ACA and were amended or extended by it. For example, the ACA extended multiple existing Medicare and Medicaid program payments and activities that have since been further extended and/or modified by provisions in more recently enacted laws. The ACA also extended funding for a number of existing grant programs whose funding has been further extended by provisions in newer laws. None of these types of provisions are included in Table 1.

House-Passed Bills

Table 2 summarizes the ACA provisions in authorizing legislation that passed the House in the 112th and 113th Congresses (2011-2014) but saw little if any further legislative action. Two of these bills, both of which passed the House in the 113th Congress, were taken up and approved by the Democratic-led Senate, though neither measure became law.

Table 2 also summarizes the ACA legislation that has passed the House to date in the 114th Congress. As noted in the table, some of these House-passed ACA bills have been used by the Senate as vehicles for considering other, unrelated legislation.

The House-passed legislation includes stand-alone bills as well as provisions in broader, often unrelated measures that would (1) repeal the ACA in its entirety and, in some cases, replace it with new law; (2) repeal, or by amendment restrict or otherwise limit, specific provisions in the ACA; (3) eliminate appropriations provided by the ACA and rescind all unobligated funds;¹⁶ (4) replace the mandatory appropriations for one or more ACA programs with authorizations of (discretionary) appropriations, and rescind all unobligated funds; and (5) block or otherwise delay implementation of specific ACA provisions.

Generally, Table 2 lists only legislation that, if enacted, would have a direct impact on the ACA and its implementation; measures that would not have such an effect are not included. Thus, budget resolutions, which are only binding on certain matters before Congress, are not included.¹⁷

On July 30, 2014, the House approved a simple resolution (H.Res. 676) that authorized Speaker John Boehner to sue the Obama Administration on behalf of the House of Representatives over implementation of the ACA's private health insurance provisions. The House filed a lawsuit in federal district court on November 21, 2014, seeking to invalidate two actions taken by the Administration. First, the lawsuit claims that HHS abused its authority by delaying enforcement of the ACA's employer mandate. Second, it argues that Congress has never appropriated funds for the ACA's cost-sharing subsidies.¹⁸

Reconciliation Bill

Table 3 summarizes the ACA provisions in H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which President Obama vetoed on January 8, 2016.

H.R. was reported by the House Budget Committee on October 16, 2015, and passed by the full House on October 23, 2015. The measure contained provisions submitted by three committees -- Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Workforce -- pursuant to reconciliation instructions included in the FY2016 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 11).¹⁹

As passed by the House, H.R. 3762 would repeal the individual and employer mandates, eliminate the medical device tax and the tax on high-value employer-sponsored health plans (i.e., "Cadillac tax"), and defund the PPHF, among other things. CBO and JCT estimated that the bill would reduce the budget deficit over the period FY2016-FY2025 by a total of $129 billion. That amount includes the bill's impact on the U.S. economy, the so-called macroeconomic feedback effect.²⁰

The Senate took up consideration of H.R. 3762 and substituted its own significantly broader set of ACA provisions. Those provisions were submitted by the Finance and HELP Committees, in accordance with the reconciliation instructions in S.Con.Res. 11. As amended, H.R. 3762 passed the Senate on December 3, 2015.²¹ CBO and JCT estimated that the Senate-passed bill would reduce the budget deficit over the period FY2016-FY2025 by a total of $282 billion. That estimate does not include a macroeconomic analysis.²²

The House approved the Senate-passed bill on January 6, 2016. The enrolled bill was sent to the President, who vetoed it on January 8, 2016.

Reconciliation bills are considered by the full House and Senate under expedited procedures. In the Senate, a reconciliation bill can pass with only a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes that are often needed for controversial legislation (because reconciliation bills are not subject to filibuster). The Budget Act limits Senate debate on a reconciliation bill to 20 hours and requires any amendments offered to be germane to the bill.

However, the Budget Act includes language -- known as the Byrd rule, after the late Senator Robert Byrd -- that allows senators to block provisions of (or amendments to) a reconciliation bill that are determined to be "extraneous" to the bill's basic purpose of implementing budget changes.²³ The Byrd rule includes six criteria for determining whether a provision is extraneous. For example, provisions that do not produce a change in spending or revenues or that produce a change in spending or revenues which is "merely incidental" to the provision's non-budgetary effects are generally considered extraneous.²⁴

Senators may raise a parliamentary objection (i.e., a point of order) against any provision that they believe to be extraneous. If the point of order is sustained by the parliamentarian, the extraneous material is deleted. Importantly, the Budget Act requires 60 votes to waive the Byrd rule or override a ruling on a point of order under the Byrd rule.²⁵

After the House first approved H.R. 3762 and sent the measure to the Senate, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the bill's provisions to repeal the individual and employer mandates were extraneous. The ruling meant that Senate Republicans would need 60 votes to protect the language if Democrats raised Byrd Rule points of order. Lacking a supermajority in the Senate, the Republicans chose instead to modify the provisions so that they would not violate the Byrd Rule.

The Senate version kept the mandates but eliminated the penalties for noncompliance. As summarized in Table 3, the bill also would repeal the optional Medicaid expansion and eliminate most of the new taxes and fees in the ACA.

² For more information, see CRS Report R44238, Potential Policy Implications of the House Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 3762), coordinated by Annie L. Mach.

³ For more information, see CRS Report R44300, Provisions of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3762, coordinated by Annie L. Mach.

⁴ Numerous CRS products that provide more in-depth information on the many new programs and activities authorized and funded by the ACA are available at http://www.crs.gov/pages/subissue.aspx?cliid=3746&parentid=13&preview=False.

⁵King v. Burwell, No. 14-114 slip op. (June 25, 2015), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf.

⁶NFIB v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, slip op. (June 28, 2012), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. For more information, see CRS Report R42367, Medicaid and Federal Grant Conditions After NFIB v. Sebelius: Constitutional Issues and Analysis, by Kenneth R. Thomas.

⁷ Authorizing legislation generally refers to substantive legislation, reported by a committee (or committees) of jurisdiction other than the House or Senate Appropriations Committees, that establishes or continues the operation of a federal program or agency either indefinitely or for a specific period.

⁸ For further information on direct spending, see CRS Report RS20129, Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements in the Federal Budget Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.

⁹ For further information on discretionary spending, see CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Jessica Tollestrup.

¹⁰ U.S. Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, providing an estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of ACA, as amended by HCERA (March 20, 2010), http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/amendreconprop.pdf.

¹¹ For a summary of all the ACA's mandatory appropriations, and the status of obligation of those funds, see CRS Report R41301, Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), by C. Stephen Redhead.

¹² The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA; P.L. 114-10, 129 Stat. 87) extended CHCF funding for the health centers program and the NHSC for two years by appropriating a total of $3.910 billion to the fund for each of FY2016 and FY2017. Of that amount, $3.6 billion is for the health centers program and the remaining $310 million is for the NHSC.

¹³ The ACA also reauthorized funding for many existing discretionary grant programs authorized under the Public Health Service Act; notably, the federal health workforce programs administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). The authorizations of appropriations for many of these programs expired prior to the ACA's enactment, though most of them were still receiving annual appropriations. The ACA also permanently reauthorized appropriations for the federal health centers program and for programs and services provided by the Indian Health Service (IHS). Congressional appropriators have in general continued to provide discretionary funding for these long-standing programs, though typically at funding levels below the amounts authorized by the ACA. For more details on all the authorizations (and reauthorizations) of discretionary funding in ACA, including the FY2011-FY2015 funding levels for programs that received an appropriation, see CRS Report R41390, Discretionary Spending Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), coordinated by C. Stephen Redhead.

¹⁴ The Nonrecurring Expenses Fund is an account within the Department of the Treasury. The HHS Secretary is authorized to transfer to the NEF unobligated balances of expired discretionary funds. NEF funds are available until expended for use by the HHS Secretary for capital acquisitions including facility and information technology infrastructure.

¹⁵ See footnote 1.

¹⁶ Appropriations bills provide agencies with budget authority, which is the legal authority to incur financial obligations (e.g., hire employees, purchase services, award grants, or sign contracts) that result in immediate or future government expenditures (or outlays). Budget authority is generally made available for obligation during a specified time period, typically the upcoming fiscal year. Once budget authority reaches the end of that time period, it "expires," meaning that it is no longer available for obligation. A rescission is a provision of law that cancels budget authority prior to when it would otherwise expire, making it unavailable for future obligation. For further explanations of these terms, see GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP, September 2005, pp. 85-86, available at http://www.gao.gov.

¹⁷ The House has taken multiple votes on amendments to, and passage of, budget resolutions that expressed support for a full repeal of the ACA, or the repeal or amendment of specific provisions in the law. However, budget resolutions are concurrent resolutions that apply only to Congress. They are not presented to the President for his signature and do not have the force of law. The House approved budget resolutions for FY2012 and FY2013 (H.Con.Res. 34 and H.Con.Res. 112, respectively) during the 112th Congress (2011-2012) and passed budget resolutions for FY2014 and FY2015 (H.Con.Res. 25 and H.Con.Res. 96, respectively) during the 113th Congress (2013-2014). All four House budget resolutions included language addressing full repeal of the ACA. In 2015, the House and the Senate each passed a budget resolution for FY2016 (H.Con.Res. 27 and S.Con.Res. 11, respectively). Both measures -- as well as the subsequent conference agreement (S.Con.Res. 11) approved by the two chambers -- included language calling for full repeal of the ACA.

¹⁸United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, 1:14-cv-01967 (D.D.C. 2014), http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/HouseLitigation.pdf.

¹⁹ For more information, see CRS Report R44238, Potential Policy Implications of the House Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 3762), coordinated by Annie L. Mach.

²⁰ U.S. Congressional Budget Office, "Estimate of Direct Spending and Revenue Effects of H.R. 3762, The Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, as Passed by the House and Following Enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015," November 4, 2015, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/hr3762aspassed.pdf. Excluding macroeconomic feedback effects, CBO and JCT estimated that H.R. 3762 would reduce the deficit by $78 billion over the FY2016-FY2025 period. They estimated that macroeconomic feedback effects would reduce deficits by an additional $51 billion over that period. The largest effect would be an increase in revenues arising from the increased supply of labor, which in turn would boost employment and taxable income.

²¹ For more information, see CRS Report R44300, Provisions of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3762, coordinated by Annie L. Mach.

²² U.S. Congressional Budget Office, "Estimate of Direct Spending and Revenue Effects of H.R. 3762, The Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, as Passed by the Senate on December 3, 2015," December 8, 2015, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/H.R.3762aspassedbythesenate.pdf.

²³ 2 U.S.C. § 644.

²⁴ 2 U.S.C. § 644(b)(1).

²⁵ For more information, see CRS Report RL30862, The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's "Byrd Rule," by Bill Heniff Jr.