House Offset Amendments to Appropriations Bills: Procedural Considerations (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (17 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Feb. 6, 2019 |
| Report Number |
RL31055 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
James V. Saturno, Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Nov. 30, 2016 ( $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Sept. 29, 2014 (18 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised July 5, 2011 (18 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Nov. 19, 2010 (17 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Dec. 13, 2006 (17 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
One of the most common methods for changing spending priorities in appropriations bills on the
House floor is through offset amendments. House offset amendments may generally change
spending priorities in a pending appropriations measure by increasing spending for certain
activities (or creating spending for new activities not previously included in the bill) and
offsetting the increase with funding decreases in other activities in the bill. Offset amendments
are needed to avoid points of order under Sections 302(f) and 311(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act, enforcing certain spending ceilings affecting regular appropriations bills, continuing
resolutions (CRs), and supplemental appropriations measures (supplementals). In addition,
amendments to general appropriations bills that would increase total spending provided in the bill
must be entirely offset.
Two types of House offset amendments are considered in the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union (Committee of the Whole): clause 2(f) and reachback (or fetchback)
amendments. As provided under House Rule XXI, clause 2(f) offset amendments consist of two or
more amendments considered together (or en bloc) that would change amounts by directly adding
text or changing text in the body of the bill. Taken as a whole, the amendment does not increase
the amount of funding in the pending bill. Such amendments (1) must provide offsets in both new
budget authority and outlays, (2) can only include language transferring appropriations in the bill,
and (3) may contain certain unauthorized appropriations.
Reachback offset amendments are generally offered at the end of the bill and change funding
amounts in the pending bill by reference. These amendments (1) must provide offsets in new
budget authority, but not necessarily outlays; (2) may add new appropriations (and spending setasides
within certain restrictions); (3) cannot include unauthorized appropriations; and (4) may
provide across-the-board spending reductions as offsets.
Parliamentary rules governing consideration of offset amendments may be suspended or waived,
typically by House adoption of a special rule but also by unanimous consent.
The advantages of clause 2(f) amendments over reachback amendments are that clause 2(f)
amendments may contain certain unauthorized appropriations and are typically considered before
reachback amendments, sometimes limiting offset opportunities for reachback amendments. The
main advantages of reachback amendments are that they may not have to offset outlays, may add
new appropriations, and may include across-the-board spending reductions.
