Order Code RL34354
Congressional Influences on Rulemaking Through
Appropriations Provisions
Updated February 11, 2008
Curtis W. Copeland
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Congressional Influences on Rulemaking Through
Appropriations Provisions
Summary
The statutory provision known as the “Congressional Review Act” (CRA) (5
U.S.C. §§801-808) established expedited procedures by which Congress may
disapprove agencies’ rules by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval, with
subsequent presentation to the President for signature or veto. Although initially
viewed as a reassertion of congressional authority over rulemaking and regulatory
agencies, the CRA is now viewed by some as much less effective — having been
used to overturn only one rule in the more than 11 years since it took effect.
However, Congress has various other methods to influence agency rulemaking
activity, including the addition of provisions to appropriations bills.
This report examines the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 (P.L. 110-
161) and identifies four types of provisions that prevent or restrain federal
rulemaking or regulatory activities: (1) restrictions on the issuance of particular final
regulations, (2) restrictions on the development of general categories of regulations,
(3) implementation or enforcement restrictions, and (4) conditional restrictions.
Examples of each of these categories are provided in this report. Although none of
these appropriations provisions appears designed to reverse agency rulemaking
actions (as the CRA was intended to permit), the number and variety of the
provisions clearly illustrate that Congress’s ability to oversee and affect regulatory
agencies is not confined to CRA resolutions of disapproval.
Provisions prohibiting the development or finalization of regulations appear
more effective than limitations on the enforcement of regulations, which do not
relieve regulated entities of their compliance responsibilities. Also, some regulations
are implemented through state or local governments, and some state or local
governments have their own statutory and regulatory requirements that are the same
as or similar to the federal rules at issue. Finally, it is unclear whether the President
will view any of these regulatory restrictions on agency action as unconstitutional
infringements on his authority to manage the executive branch.
This report will be updated if any changes occur that alter the factual
information in the report.

Contents
Restrictions on the Issuance of Particular Final Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Restrictions on Regulatory Activity Within Certain Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Implementation or Enforcement Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Conditional Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Congressional Influences on Rulemaking
Through Appropriations Provisions
In March 1996, the statutory provisions commonly known as the “Congressional
Review Act” (CRA) (5 U.S.C. §§801-808) were included as part of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). Under the CRA, before
any final rule can take effect, it must be filed with each house of Congress and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO). The act established expedited procedures
by which Congress may disapprove agencies’ rules by enacting a joint resolution of
disapproval, with subsequent presentation to the President for signature or veto.1
Although initially considered a reassertion of congressional authority over
rulemaking agencies, the CRA is now viewed by some observers as far less effective
than originally anticipated.2 Between April 1996 and October 2007, federal agencies
submitted more than 46,000 rules to GAO (and, presumably, to Congress), and 43
CRA joint resolutions of disapproval were introduced regarding 32 rules. However,
during this 11-year period, only one rule was overturned through the CRA’s
procedures — OSHA’s ergonomics standard in March 2001 — and that reversal was
the result of a unique set of circumstances.3
Even though the CRA has not proven to be an effective way for Congress to
reverse agency rulemaking, Congress does influence regulatory activity in a variety
of other ways. Those methods include how specifically the underlying statutes are
written,4 statutory requirements delineating the analytical and procedural steps that
1 For a detailed discussion of CRA procedures, see CRS Report RL31160, Disapproval of
Regulations by Congress: Procedure Under the Congressional Review Act
, by Richard S.
Beth.
2 Testimony of Morton Rosenberg, Specialist in American Public Law, Congressional
Research Service, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law, Oversight of the Congressional Review Act, hearings,
110th Cong., 1st sess., November 6, 2007. On page 2 of his written testimony, Rosenberg
said, “we know enough to conclude that [the CRA] has not worked well to achieve the
objectives of its sponsors: to set in place an effective mechanism to keep Congress informed
about the rulemaking activities of federal agencies and to allow for expeditious
congressional review, and possible nullification, of particular rules.”
3 In this case, the incoming President (George W. Bush) did not veto the resolution
disapproving the outgoing President’s (William J. Clinton’s) rule. See CRS Report
RL30116, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Update and Assessment of the
Congressional Review Act After a Decade
, by Morton Rosenberg, for a description of
several possible factors affecting the law’s use.
4 All regulations start with an act of Congress, and are the means by which statutes are
(continued...)

CRS-2
must be followed in the development of proposed and final rules,5 oversight hearings
on particular rules or rulemaking requirements, confirmation hearings for the heads
of regulatory agencies, and provisions included in the text of agencies’ appropriations
bills.6
Compared to the other congressional methods, the effects of appropriations
provisions on rulemaking have received comparatively little attention by analysts, but
those provisions can have substantial effects on agencies’ regulatory activities. Some
of the appropriations provisions direct agencies to develop rules in particular areas,
or to take particular enforcement actions. For example, within the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for 2008 (P.L. 110-161, signed by President George W. Bush on
December 26, 2007), Section 563 within Division E of the legislation (the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008) amends the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. §361 et seq.) and requires the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to “regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium
nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility in accordance with the subtitle to prevent the
misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.” The legislation
delineates what the regulations must contain (e.g., a registration process for owners,
records that must be maintained, and an appeals process); and mandates that the
Secretary “(1) shall issue a proposed rule implementing this subtitle not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this subtitle; and (2) shall issue a final rule
implementing this subtitle not later than 1 year after such date of enactment.”
Other appropriations provisions affect the process by which rules are developed.
For example, a provision within Title II within Section D of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for 2008 states that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act
for the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] may be used for the purpose of
reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any activities or regulations under the
provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. §601 et
4 (...continued)
implemented and specific requirements are established. The specificity of the statutory
basis for a regulation can vary significantly, from broad grants of rulemaking authority that
state the general intent of the legislation to very specific requirements delineating exactly
what regulatory agencies should do and how they should do it. For examples of both
general and specific statutory authorities, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Regulatory
Burden: Some Agencies’ Claims Regarding Lack of Rulemaking Discretion Have Merit
,
GAO/GGD-99-20, January 8, 1999.
5 These statutory rulemaking requirements include the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. §551 et seq.), the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. §§3501-3520), the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §§601-612), Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (2 U.S.C. §§1532-1538), and the Information Quality Act (44 U.S.C. §§3504(d)(1) and
3516). For a discussion of these and other requirements, see CRS Report RL32240, The
Federal Rulemaking Process: An Overview
, by Curtis W. Copeland.
6 Limitations on the expenditure of funds may be in the text of legislation, or in committee
reports, conference reports, or managers’ statements. Only provisions in the text of the
legislation are legally binding. See CRS Report 98-518 GOV, Earmarks and Limitations
in Appropriations Bills
, by Sandy Streeter. In this report, all of the provisions mentioned
were in the text of the legislation.

CRS-3
seq.).”7 Language prohibiting OMB review of agricultural marketing orders and
other materials has been in legislation funding OMB for about 25 years.
Still other provisions in appropriations acts are intended to prevent regulatory
agencies from taking certain actions. For example, for six years (FY1996 through
FY2001), the Department of Transportation’s appropriations acts stated that none of
the funds in the act could be used to prepare, propose, or promulgate regulations
prescribing corporate average fuel economy, or “CAFE,” standards for automobiles
that differed from the standards promulgated prior to the enactment of the legislation.
Therefore, the department concluded that it was required to keep the same CAFE
standard that applied in each of the previous years.8 Such repetitive restrictions in
appropriations acts appear to be an effective way to block certain rules. Conversely,
discontinuance of those restrictions would remove the bar and permit agencies to go
forward with those rules.
The remainder of this report focuses on the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
2008 and identifies four types of provisions in the legislation that appear to prevent
or restrict federal rulemaking or regulatory activities: (1) prohibitions on the issuance
of particular final regulations, (2) prohibitions on the development of regulations
with regard to particular statutes or issues, (3) implementation or enforcement
restrictions, and (4) conditional restrictions. Examples of each of these categories are
provided below, followed by a brief concluding discussion. Although none of these
appropriations provisions would nullify agency rulemaking actions (e.g., eliminating
a rule from the Code of Federal Regulations, as the CRA was intended to permit),
the number and variety of the provisions clearly illustrate that Congress’s ability to
oversee and affect rulemaking and regulatory agencies is not confined to CRA
resolutions of disapproval.
Restrictions on the Issuance of Particular Final Rules
Certain provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 prevent the
finalization of particular proposed rules by denying the use of funds. For example:
! Section 723 within Division A of the legislation (the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008) states that “None of the funds
made available by this Act may be used to issue a final rule in
furtherance of, or otherwise implement, the proposed rule on
cost-sharing for animal and plant health emergency programs of the
7 Under Executive Order 12866, OMB reviews draft regulations before they are published
as proposed or final rules. See CRS Report RL32397, Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
, by Curtis W. Copeland.
8 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Transportation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration: Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year
2000
, GAO/OGC-98-42, April 17, 1998; and U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Vehicle Fuel Economy: Reforming Fuel Economy Standards Could Help Reduce Oil
Consumption by Cars and Light Trucks, and Other Options Could Complement These
Standards
, GAO-07-921, August 2, 2007.

CRS-4
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published on July 8,
2003 (Docket No. 02-062-1; 68 Fed. Reg. 40541).” Other than the
extension of the proposed rule’s comment period until November
2003,9 the agency had taken no further action on the July 2003
proposed rule, and had not indicated in recent editions of the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
that it
intended to take action on the rule in the future.10
! Section 735 within Division D of the legislation (the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008) states
that “none of the funds appropriated or made available under this
Act or any other appropriations Act may be used ... to implement the
proposed regulations of the Office of Personnel Management [OPM]
to add sections 300.311 through 300.316 to part 300 of title 5 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal Register,
volume 68, number 174, on September 9, 2003 (relating to the detail
of executive branch employees to the legislative branch).” Among
other things, the proposed regulation would prohibit any executive
agency from detailing or otherwise assigning an employee to the
legislative branch without the approval of the OPM Director. The
agency had taken no further action on the September 2003 proposed
rule, and had not indicated in recent editions of the Unified Agenda
that it intended to take action on the rule in the future.
! Section 559 of Division E of the legislation states that “None of the
funds made available in this Act may be used by the Secretary of
Homeland Security or any delegate of the Secretary to issue any rule
or regulation which implements the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
related to Petitions for Aliens To Perform Temporary
Nonagricultural Services or Labor (H-2B) set out beginning on 70
Fed. Reg. 3984 (January 27, 2005).” Other than the extension of the
comment period until April 2005,11 the agency had taken no further
action on the January 2005 proposed rule, and had not indicated in
the Unified Agenda that it intended to take action in the future.
! Section 432 of Division F of the legislation (the Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2008) states that “None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to promulgate or implement the Environmental
9 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Cost-
Sharing for Animal and Plant Health Emergency Programs,” 68 Federal Register 51713,
August 28, 2003.
10 The Unified Agenda is published twice each year in the Federal Register, and provides
uniform reporting of data on regulatory activities under development throughout the federal
government.
11 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
“Petitions for Aliens to Perform Temporary Nonagricultural Services or Labor (H-2B),” 70
Federal Register 11585, March 9, 2005.

CRS-5
Protection Agency [EPA] proposed regulations published in the
Federal Register on January 3, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg. 69).” The
proposed rule at issue would have amended the general provisions
to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants,
replacing a policy that had been established in 1995. The agency
had taken no further action on the proposed rule, and had not
indicated in the Unified Agenda that it intended to take action in the
future.
! Section 170 within Division K of the legislation (the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2008) states that “None of the funds provided
or limited under this Act may be used to issue a final regulation
under section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, except that the
Federal Transit Administration may continue to review comments
received on the proposed rule (Docket No. FTA-2006-25737).”
Section 5309 of Title 49 involves “capital investment grants.” The
proposed rule was issued on August 3, 2007, and proposed changes
in the Federal Transit Administration’s “Small Starts” capital
investment grant program.12 The December 2007 Unified Agenda
listed the rule as part of the Department of Transportation’s
Regulatory Plan (signifying it as one of the department’s most
important regulatory actions), but did not indicate when any final
rule was expected to be issued.13
Restrictions on Regulatory Activity Within Certain Areas
Other provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 are more
general, prohibiting the development, issuance, amendment, implementation, or
enforcement of regulations regarding a particular statute or within a particular area.
For example:
! Section 726 within Division A of the legislation states that “None of
the funds provided in this Act may be used for salaries and expenses
to draft or implement any regulation or rule insofar as it would
require recertification of rural status for each electric and
telecommunications borrower for the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunication Loans program.”14
12 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, “Major Capital
Investment Projects,” 72 Federal Register 43327, August 3, 2007.
13 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, “Major Capital
Investment Projects — New/Small Starts,” 72 Federal Register 69906, December 10, 2007.
14 This provision was also in the “Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006” (P.L. 109-97, November
10, 2005, Sec. 762).

CRS-6
! Section 511 within Division D of the legislation states that “None of
the funds appropriated by this Act may be used by the Federal
Communications Commission to modify, amend, or change its rules
or regulations for universal service support payments to implement
the February 27, 2004 recommendations of the Federal-State Joint
Board on Universal Service regarding single connection or primary
line restrictions on universal service support payments.”
! Section 617 within Division D of the legislation states that “for
fiscal years 2008 and 2009, neither the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System nor the Secretary of the Treasury may
determine, by rule, regulation, order, or otherwise, for the purposes
of section 4(K) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or
section 5136A of the Revised Statutes of the United States, that real
estate brokerage activity or real estate management activity (which
for purposes of this paragraph shall be defined to mean ‘real estate
brokerage’ and ‘property management’ respectively, as those terms
were understood by the Federal Reserve Board prior to March 11,
2000) is an activity that is financial in nature, is incidental to any
financial activity, or is complementary to a financial activity. For
purposes of this paragraph, ‘real estate brokerage activity’ shall
mean ‘real estate brokerage’, and ‘real estate management activity’
shall mean ‘property management’ as those terms were understood
by the Federal Reserve Board prior to March 11, 2000.”
! Section 823 within Division D of the legislation (within the general
provisions applicable to the District of Columbia) states that “None
of the funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out
any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties
associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule
I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.”
! Section 433 of Division F of the legislation states that “None of the
funds made available by this Act shall be used to prepare or publish
final regulations regarding a commercial leasing program for oil
shale resources on public lands pursuant to section 369(d) of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) or to conduct an oil
shale lease sale pursuant to subsection 369(e) of such Act.”
! The section of the legislation providing funds for salaries and
expenses at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) within Division G of the legislation (the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008) contains a provision stating that
“none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be
obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or enforce any
standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Act which is applicable
to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which does not

CRS-7
maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 10 or fewer
employees.”
! A section of the legislation within Division K of the act having to do
with Federal Aviation Administration Operations states that “none
of the funds in this Act shall be available for the Federal Aviation
Administration to finalize or implement any regulation that would
promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law
after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
! Section 111 within Division K states that “None of the funds in this
Act shall be used to pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations
requiring airport sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation
Administration without cost building construction, maintenance,
utilities and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings
for services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or weather
reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in this section
does not apply to negotiations between the agency and airport
sponsors to achieve agreement on ‘below-market’ rates for these
items or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide
land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.”
Implementation or Enforcement Restrictions
In still other cases, language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008
specifically prevents the implementation or enforcement of a rule or set of rules by
withholding funds. In some cases a particular rule or set of rules is specified, but in
other cases it is not clear whether any particular rules are already in place. For
example:
! Section 741 within Division A of the legislation states that “None of
the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay the salaries
or expenses of personnel to — (1) inspect horses under section 3 of
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603); (2) inspect horses
under section 903 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901 note; Public Law 104-127); or
(3) implement or enforce section 352.19 of title 9, Code of Federal
Regulations.”
! A condition in Division D of the legislation that is associated with
a nearly $118 million payment to the Postal Service Fund for
revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail was that “none of the
funds made available to the Postal Service by this Act shall be used
to implement any rule, regulation, or policy of charging any officer
or employee of any State or local child support enforcement agency,
or any individual participating in a State or local program of child
support enforcement, a fee for information requested or provided
concerning an address of a postal customer.”

CRS-8
! Section 621 within Division D of the legislation states that “None of
the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Federal
Communications Commission to implement the Fairness Doctrine,
as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast
Licensees (50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985)), or any other regulations
having the same substance.”
Other provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008 appear to
have the opposite intent — i.e., forbidding the prohibition of regulatory enforcement.
For example, Section 606 within Division D of the legislation states that “None of
the funds made available by this Act shall be available for any activity or for paying
the salary of any Government employee where funding an activity or paying a salary
to a Government employee would result in a decision, determination, rule, regulation,
or policy that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1307).”
Conditional Restrictions
Another set of provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 make
implementation of a particular rule or set of rules conditional upon certain other
actions by agencies or Congress. For example:
! A provision within Division F of the legislation states that “None of
the funds made available to the Indian Health Service in this Act
shall be used to implement the final rule published in the Federal
Register on September 16, 1987, by the Department of Health and
Human Services, relating to the eligibility for the health care
services of the Indian Health Service until the Indian Health Service
has submitted a budget request reflecting the increased costs
associated with the proposed final rule, and such request has been
included in an appropriations Act and enacted into law.”
! Section 110 within Division G of the act states that “None of the
funds made available in this or any other Act shall be available to
finalize or implement any proposed regulation under the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998, Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, or the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 until such time as
legislation reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 is enacted.”15
! Section 305 within Division G states that “None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used to promulgate, implement, or
enforce any revision to the regulations in effect under section 496 of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 on June 1, 2007, until legislation
specifically requiring such revision is enacted.”
15 This provision also appeared in the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007
(P.L. 110-5, February 15, 2007).

CRS-9
Concluding Observations
These examples illustrate that, through a variety of provisions added to
appropriations acts, Congress can have a substantive effect on agency rulemaking
activity beyond joint resolutions of disapproval pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act. Some of the provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
2008 had been in previous appropriations measures, but some appeared to be new to
this legislation.16 Similarly, previous appropriations measures contained restrictions
on the development or implementation of regulations that were not included in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008.17 Provisions in appropriations acts are
binding only for the period of time covered by the legislation (i.e., a fiscal year or a
portion of a fiscal year). Therefore, any regulatory restriction that is not repeated in
the next relevant appropriations act or enacted in other legislation is no longer
binding on the relevant agency or agencies.
Most of the regulatory restrictions are in appropriations bills providing funds for
particular agencies or groups of agencies (e.g., agencies funded by the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2008). Therefore, the prohibitions are applicable only to the
agencies funded by that appropriations measure. However, some of the regulatory
prohibitions are in the “General Provisions — Government-wide” section of one of
the appropriations measures (for FY2008, Title VII of the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act), and are therefore applicable to virtually
all federal agencies. For example, the provision in Section 735 of Division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 that prohibited the use of funds to
implement a proposed rule on details to the legislative branch was in the “General
Provisions — Government-wide” section of the act. Although this and other
restrictions in that section are applicable government-wide, they are often written in
such a way that, in practice, only certain agencies are actually affected (in this case,
OPM).
As noted earlier in this report, unlike joint resolutions of disapproval under the
Congressional Review Act, the provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for 2008 do not nullify final rulemaking actions taken by regulatory agencies.
Therefore, any final rule that has taken effect and been codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations
will continue to be binding law — even if language in the
16 The provisions having to do with the Rural Electrification and Telecommunication Loans
program, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Reform Act, inter alia, were in previous appropriations acts.
17 For example, Section 760 of the “Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006” (P.L. 109-97, November
10, 2005) stated that “None of the funds provided in this Act may be used for salaries and
expenses to carry out any regulation or rule insofar as it would make ineligible for
enrollment in the conservation reserve program established under subchapter B of chapter
1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.) land
that is planted to hardwood trees as of the date of enactment of this Act and was enrolled
in the conservation reserve program under a contract that expired prior to calendar year
2002.” No similar provision was in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2008.

CRS-10
relevant regulatory agency’s appropriations act prohibits the use of funds to enforce
the rule. Regulated entities are still required to adhere to applicable requirements
(e.g., installation of pollution control devices, submission of relevant paperwork),
even if violations are unlikely to be detected and enforcement actions cannot be taken
by federal agencies.
Some of the appropriations provisions restricting regulatory actions may not be
all encompassing. Some federal agencies may derive funds from sources other than
congressional appropriations (e.g., user fees), and the use of those funds to develop,
implement, or enforce rules does not appear to be legally constrained by language
stating that funds in a particular appropriations measure could not be used to draft a
rule or implement its provisions. Also, some federal regulations (particularly those
issued by EPA and OSHA) are primarily enforced by state or local governments, and
those governments may have sources of funding that are independent of the federal
funds that are restricted by the appropriations provisions. Some state or local
governments may also have their own statutory and regulatory requirements that are
the same as or similar to the federal rules at issue. If state or local funds or legal
authorities are used to develop, implement, or enforce regulations, those actions
would not appear to be constrained by statutory provisions limiting the use of federal
funds to restrict action on particular federal laws and regulations.
Also unclear is how these restrictions on regulatory agencies in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for 2008 will be viewed and implemented by the President. In
his December 26, 2007, signing statement on the legislation, President George W.
Bush said the act “contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior
appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent
with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the
executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as
I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.”18 If President Bush views
these restrictions on agencies’ rulemaking and regulatory authorities as
unconstitutional infringements on his ability to manage the executive branch, the
agencies might be directed to ignore the restrictions in the appropriations act. On the
other hand, because all agency regulations are based on some type of statutory
rulemaking authority, Congress may view any failure to adhere to the appropriations
restrictions as equally unconstitutional.19 In this situation, federal courts may have
to decide whether the appropriations provisions are binding on the agencies.
18 To view a copy of this signing statement, see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2007/12/20071226-1.html]. For more information on signing statements, see CRS Report
RL33667, Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications,
by T.J. Halstead. For information on how signing statements have been implemented, see
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Presidential Signing Statements Accompanying the
Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Acts
, B-308603, June 18, 2007; and U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Presidential Signing Statements — Agency Implementation of Ten
Provisions of Law
, B-309928, December 20, 2007.
19 For more on the perspective of federal rulemaking agencies as extensions of Congress,
and regulations as extensions of legislative activity, see David H. Rosenbloom, Building a
Legislative-Centered Public Administration: Congress and the Administrative State, 1946-
1999
(Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2000).