Appropriations Report Language: Overview of
August 16, 2021
Components and Development
Kevin P. McNellis
In general, congressional reports may accompany appropriations measures reported by the House
Analyst on Congress and
and Senate Appropriations Committees or when the House and Senate resolve differences
the Legislative Process
between appropriations measures. Although the language contained in these reports is not

considered binding in the same manner as the statutory language of appropriations acts, report
language plays an essential role in the congressional consideration of appropriations measures

and also affects how federal agencies obligate the funds provided by those measures. The House
and Senate Appropriations Committees have developed specific components and committee practices related to report
language that differ in important ways from how other committees draft and use congressional reports. In addition, chamber
rules require the inclusion of specific types of information about the contents of appropriations measures in order to facilitate
their congressional consideration. This CRS report provides an overview of the key components of appropriations report
language and how that language is developed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
In current practice, appropriations report language has a number of typical components. Much of the language is devoted to a
“section-by-section” analysis of each of the appropriation bill’s accounts. It also includes a lengthy set of tables that provides
a “comparative statement of new budget authority” between what is provided in the bill, the prior year’s appropriation, and
the amounts requested in the President’s budget. The report language also typically includes a number of directives to the
agencies funded in the bill. These directives can address the form of budget justifications, other reporting guidelines and
committee initiatives, “program, project, or activity” (PPA) definitions, reprogramming and other notification guidelines, and
specific programmatic requests. The Congressional Budget Act also requires that House and Senate Appropriations
Committee reports for regular and supplemental appropriations measures include a statement comparing levels in the
measure to the applicable Section 302(b) suballocations. House and Senate rules also mandate that committee reports for
general appropriations measures provide lists of appropriations not authorized by law and the disclosure of congressionally
directed spending (commonly referred to as “earmarks”). In addition, the House requires that rescissions and transfers, as
well as language changing existing law, be listed in committee reports accomp anying general appropriations measures.

Congressional Research Service

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Introduction
Since the first Congress, the congressional appropriations process has involved the annual
consideration of measures to fund the activities of most federal agencies and departments.1 The
process has evolved over time so that it currently assumes the consideration of 12 regular
appropriations bills to provide discretionary spending for the upcoming fiscal year.2 If some or al
of the regular appropriations measures are not enacted before the beginning of the upcoming
fiscal year (October 1), one or more continuing resolutions (CRs) might be enacted to provide
temporary appropriations until either regular appropriations are enacted or the fiscal year ends.
Congress may also consider supplemental appropriations to provide additional funds in the
current fiscal year, typical y to address pressing or unanticipated funding needs.3
Congress’s consideration of these types of appropriations measures has developed in response to
a variety of internal and external institutional considerations. The principal internal considerations
include the long-standing congressional rules and practices that encourage the separation of
money and policy decisions (“appropriations” and “authorizations,” respectively); the constraints
of previously agreed-upon fiscal policies and goals;4 and the relationship between the
appropriations committees and their respective parent chambers. Additional external
considerations, which largely derive from the relationship between Congress and the agencies
funded through the annual appropriations process, include the degree of administrative flexibility
granted to agencies and congressional oversight of agencies’ use of appropriated funds.
The form and content of the committee reports that accompany appropriations measures have also
evolved in response to these internal and external institutional considerations. The House and
Senate Appropriations Committees primarily use report language for two broad purposes. First,
report language explains the provisions of an appropriations measure to Representatives and
Senators who wil subsequently consider the accompanying measure. Second, report language is
used to communicate with the federal agencies receiving the appropriations by providing
supplementary information and an explanation of the measure’s legislative intent, which often
includes a range of directives to the agency.
Although report language itself does not meet the bicameralism and presentment requirements of
Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution—and therefore does not bind agencies in the same
manner as statutory appropriations language—agencies wil usual y comply with a report’s
directives. One congressional scholar observed that “the criticisms and suggestions carried in the
reports accompanying each bil are expected to influence the subsequent behavior of the agency.

1 An appropriation is a type of budget authority that provides the legal authority for agencies to incur financial
obligations and to make payments from the T reasury for specific purposes. For a further explanation of these terms, see
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), A Glossary of Term s Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-
734SP, September 2005, pp. 20-23, 70, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-05-734sp.pdf.
2 T he congressional budget process distinguishes between discretionary spending, which is controlled through
appropriations acts, and direct (or mandatory) spending, which is controlled through permanent law. For further
information on this distinction, see CRS Report R46240, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process. T he annual
appropriations process is also used to provide appropriations necessary to finance certain direct spending programs that
lack a funding source in the authorizing statute. Such “appropriated mandatory” or “appropriated entitlement” spending
is discussed in CRS Report RS20129, Entitlem ents and Appropriated Entitlem ents in the Federal Budget Process.
3 For a general overview of the annual appropriations process, see CRS Report R42388, The Congressional
Appropriations Process: An Introduction.
4 Examples of such constraints include those associated with budget resolutions, other statutory spending limits, and
previously enacted legislation.
Congressional Research Service

1

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Committee reports are not the law, but it is expected that they be regarded almost as seriously.”5
Additional y, Congress can incorporate certain provisions of the appropriations committee reports
into the text of appropriations measures via statutory references. That is, the text of an
appropriations measure may explicitly reference specific provisions of a committee report
accompanying an appropriations measure.6 In such cases, agencies would likely treat the
incorporated report language as being equivalent to the statutory provision of the appropriations
bil that is enacted into law. For these reasons, congressional interest in the appropriations process
is not limited to the consideration of appropriations measures but also includes the development
of report language that accompanies those measures.
Typical y, report language may be used to supplement the legislative text of an appropriations
measure during two stages of the legislative process. First, written reports may accompany the
version of a bil reported by the House or Senate Appropriations Committee to its respective
parent chamber. The House has required that written reports accompany bil s reported by al
committees, first implementing such a requirement in 1880.7 While Senate rules do not require
written reports, measures reported by committees are usual y accompanied by or otherwise
associated with them. Second, when resolving differences between the House and Senate, a joint
explanatory statement (JES), which accompanies a conference report prior to final action by each
chamber, is also a form of report language. The JES may be used to reconcile disagreements
between the House and Senate committee reports written at earlier stages of the legislative
process and wil typical y also provide additional information about the agreement. For measures
not reported from committee that receive congressional consideration, including when differences
are resolved through an amendment exchange, explanatory text from the appropriations
committees is sometimes entered into the Congressional Record and may be regarded as similar
to report language for certain purposes.8 In addition, report language in the JES or explanatory
statement may in some cases be enacted by reference in the appropriations law that it
accompanies, giving it statutory effect.
This report provides an overview of appropriations report language. It general y does not,
however, explain the report language components and related practices that are applicable to all
types of legislation, with the exception of House and Senate rules requiring the disclosure of
congressional y directed spending items, commonly known as “earmarks.”9 The first section of
this report explains the origins, purposes, and forms of the major report language components that
are particular to appropriations measures, with il ustrative examples. The second section
summarizes how appropriations report language is developed.

5 Richard Fenno, The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1966), p. 18.
6 For an example of this type of statut ory incorporation by reference, see p. 651 of the FY2021 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-260).
7 Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and T homas J. Wickham Jr., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House, 115th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2017), ch. 11, §28. T he current
requirement for committees to file reports is codified in House Rule XIII, clause 2.
8 For further information about resolving differences using a conference committee or amendment exchange, see CRS
Report 98-696, Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Com m ittees and Am endm ents Between the
Houses.
9 For general information on the required components of House and Senate committee reports, see CRS Report 98-169,
House Com m ittee Reports: Required Contents (available to congressional clients upon request); and CRS Report 98-
305, Senate Com m ittee Reports: Required Contents.
Congressional Research Service

2

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Appropriations Report Language Components
The components of report language that are specific to appropriations measures have evolved in
the context of both internal and external congressional needs. In many cases, the components and
related practices were developed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to better
enable their oversight of federal agencies. Other components came about as a result of chamber
rules requiring the inclusion of certain information to aid the congressional consideration of
appropriations measures. In response to these various needs, certain categories of report language
are used each fiscal year in many or al of the appropriations committee reports and, in some
cases, the JES (or other explanatory text) that resolves differences between House and Senate
committee reports. This section describes the origin, purposes, and current forms of these report
language components and provides il ustrative examples of each.
Overview of Accounts, Funding Allocations, and Other Directives
Overview of Accounts (“Section-by-Section” Summaries)
The bulk of the House and Senate reports accompanying regular appropriations bil s provide an
overview of each account in the bil .10 This practice derives from the more general practice that
congressional reports accompanying legislation summarize each section or title of the measure.
These descriptions are often referred to as “section-by-section” (or “title-by-title”) summaries.
Because appropriations bil s are organized by unnumbered headings, with each heading general y
corresponding to an account, section-by-section summaries of appropriations bil s are organized
by account and also include short descriptions of other provisions included in the bil that are not
part of the appropriations accounts.11 Such provisions may include “administrative provisions”
that are specific to particular accounts or agencies, as wel as “general provisions” that are more
broadly applicable to al funds in the bil (or a specified title of the bil ).
The account-by-account summary provides an explanation of the purpose of each of the bil ’s
accounts and describes the programs and activities that the bil funds. These descriptions are
typical y framed as a justification of the funding levels proposed for that account, as compared to
those provided the previous fiscal year and proposed in the President’s budget request. These
committee explanations and justifications of recommended funding levels provide helpful context
for Members as they evaluate the measure and any potential floor amendments.
Funding Allocations
In many instances, additional directives to agencies in report language also include more detail on
the al ocation of funds than what is provided in the bil itself. For example, the FY2020
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bil reported by
the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 2740) contained the “Maternal and Child Health”
account within the Department of Health and Human Service’s Health Resources and Services

10 T he basic unit of appropriations bills is the account, which generally includes sim ilar programs, projects, or other
related budgetary items—for example, salaries and employee expenses or research and development activities. Larger
agencies typically receive appropriations to multiple accounts, although smaller agencies may receive all o f their
funding through a single account.
11 Some reports also include policy or program highlights that address multiple accounts prior to the account -by-
account summary. See, for example, H.Rept. 116-447, pp. 2-5; H.Rept. 116-448, pp. 4-8; S.Rept. 115-289, pp. 8-20;
and S.Rept. 115-283, pp. 4-7.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 7 link to page 18 link to page 18

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Administration. The bil provided a lump-sum appropriation of $972,751,000 with no further
al ocation of the funds in the statute (except for a limitation12 and a set aside13 within that total).
The accompanying committee report shown in Figure 1 recommended that part of the account’s
overal appropriation be divided into the following specific al ocations for certain purposes:
Figure 1. Detailed Funds Allocation
H.Rept. 116-62 accompanying the FY2020 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education appropriations bil , as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 2740)

Source: H.Rept. 116-62, p. 47.
These types of funding and other directives are general y not legal y binding on agencies in the
same way as the statutory text of appropriations acts, because committee reports do not meet the
requirements of bicameralism and presentment under Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution.14
Nevertheless, agencies treat these directives seriously, and the appropriations committees expect
that agencies wil general y comply with report directives.15 This high degree of compliance is
driven, in part, by the agencies’ desire to maintain good relationships with the appropriations
committees, as wel as the committees’ ability to subsequently adopt more restrictive statutory
directives and funding adjustments in future appropriations bil s. The following statement in the
report accompanying the FY2021 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies regular

12 For more information about appropriations limitations, see the discussion on pp. 15-16 in the “Language Changing
Existing Law” below.
13 Set aside is generally a term used within the appropriations committees for provisions in appropriations bills that
designate specific amounts within the account’s overall lump-sum appropriation to be used for certain purposes.
14 T he exception to this general rule is when directives are incorporated by reference into the statutory text of an
appropriations act. In such cases, an agency would likely treat the incorporated directives as binding. For more
information, see CRS Report, Regular Appropriations Acts: Selected Statutory Interpretation Issues.
15 Although there is no systematic quantification available about how often agencies comply with report directives, a
recent analysis of the Food and Drug Administration found that the agency complied with the majority of the
appropriations committees’ report directives. See Laura E. Dolbow, “Agency Adherence to Legislative History,”
Adm inistrative Law Review, vol. 70, no. 3 (Summer 2018), pp. 569 -628. Past analysis of the appropriations process has
also found strong anecdotal evidence that agencies sought to comply with report directives. See Fenno, The Power of
the Purse, pp. 291-293; and Michael W. Krist, Governm ent Without Passing Laws: Congress’ Nonstatutory Techniques
for Appropriations Control (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), pp. 64 -82.
In the event that an agency wishes to deviate from the directives in report language as to the allocation of funds, it
might seek to alter that allocation through a “ reprogramming.” T his topic is discussed further in the section of this
report, “Reprogramming Guidelines.”
Congressional Research Service

4

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

appropriations bil highlights how the appropriations committees might respond to an
uncooperative agency:
In the absence of comity and respect for the prerogatives of the Appropriations Committees
and the Congress in general, the Committee may opt to include specific program limitations
and details in legislation and remove language providing the flexibility to reallocate funds.
Under these circumstances, programs, projects, and activities become absolutes and the
Executive Branch shall lose the ability to propose changes in the use of appropriated funds
except through legislative action.16
Other Directives
The appropriations committees also use the section-by-section summaries to provide additional
directives to the agencies. These directives are not enacted into law (unless they are explicitly
referenced in the statutory text of an appropriations act). They are primarily used to explain the
committees’ intent for how a particular appropriation should be used during the upcoming fiscal
year and to make other administrative requests of the instructed agencies. Most committee reports
typical y include a large number of directives, ranging from general suggestions and warnings to
precise instructions and exhortations. Despite their number and variety, the appropriations
committees have developed a general phraseology to differentiate more suggestive report
directives from directives that provide precise and prescriptive instructions to an agency.17 As one
budget process scholar noted:
[Appropriations committee] report language is carefully crafted and sometimes negotiated
with the affected agency. The reports frequently use words such as assumes, notes,
requests, expects, directs, and requires. These words are not synonymous—each has its
own nuance and intent. However, even the most permissive words offer guida nce that
agencies do not lightly disregard.18
The following il ustrative examples show how this phraseology has been used in recent
appropriations committee reports. Al of the examples are taken from the House Appropriations
Committee’s report (H.Rept. 116-446) that accompanied the FY2021 Department of Agriculture,
Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration regular appropriations bil reported by
the committee.
In cases where the appropriations committees wish to indicate a higher degree of administrative
flexibility to an agency, report directives wil typical y use words such as supports, encourages,
urges, or may. For example, the report language corresponding to the National Institute of Food

16 H.Rept. 116-455, p. 11.
17 A survey of congressional staff found that attorneys from the House and Senate Offices of Legislative Counsel
participate in the drafting of appropriations committee report language, which is not the typical practice of ot her House
and Senate committees. T he authors of the survey noted:
Whereas almost all of the Legislative Counsels whom we interviewed told us that they do not draft
legislative history—that is, they draft only the text to be enacted—the one exception, we were told,
is the appropriations context. The Legislative Counsels assigned to appropriations legislation do
draft the legislative history—a clear recognition of the text-like importance of legislative history in
this unique context (p. 980).
For more information, see Abbe R. Gluck and Lisa Schultz Bressman, “ Statutory Interpretation from the Inside -An
Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, Drafting, and the Canons: Part I,” Stanford Law Review, vol.
65, no. 5 (January 2013), pp. 979-982.
18 Allen Schick, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2007),
p. 271.
Congressional Research Service

5

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

and Agriculture (NIFA) “Research and Education Activities” account included the following
directive:
Interagency Research Programs.—The Committee recognizes the important contributions
of the Dual Purpose with Dual Benefit program jointly managed by NIFA and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). The Committee urges continued partnership between NIFA,
NIH and other relevant federal research agencies to develop the next generation
interagency program using agriculturally important large animal species. The Committee
supports continuation of cooperative programs to further strengthen ties between human
medicine, veterinary medicine, and animal sciences.19
The appropriations committees often make requests of an agency to take a more specific action.
Such report directives typical y use words such as directs, instructs, and shall. The following
directive was included in the report’s summary of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
“Salaries and Expenses” account:
Rare Cancer Therapeutics.—The Committee includes an additional $2,500,000 to address
gaps in the system, streamline resources, accelerate the development of rare cancer
therapies and advance the field of cancer research overall, mirroring the efforts of the
National Cancer Institute’s Developmental Therapeutics Program. FDA is directed to build
lines of communications and processes between these two agencies in order to expedite
review of rare cancer therapies. Further, the Committee directs FDA to provide a briefing
on what FDA has done to achieve the goals listed above, not later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act.20
Although the committees have developed relatively consistent phraseology to provide direction to
agencies funded through the annual appropriations process, the interpretation of these directives
ultimately depends on the specific context of a particular directive and the relationships between
the appropriations committees and the instructed agency. These particular contextual differences
notwithstanding, however, the general expectation of appropriations committees is that agencies
wil pay careful attention to al of the directives included in the appropriations committees’
reports.21
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority
Tables in appropriations reports that summarize the appropriations in the bil , the budgetary
effects of other provisions, and certain additional al ocations in the report have been in use for at
least the past century.22 These tables assist with the congressional evaluation of the amounts in the
bil , as wel as some of the additional funding al ocations of those amounts in the report.23 In
current practice, the specific categories of information displayed and compared in the summary
table depend on the chamber and stage of legislative action but may include amounts for:

19 H.Rept. 116-446, p. 28.
20 H.Rept. 116-446, p. 93.
21 For a discussion of how report directives influence how agencies implement their budgets, see CRS Report
RL33151, Com m ittee Controls of Agency Decisions, p. 24.
22 For some early examples of these tables, see H.Rept. 59-1106, pp. 1-3; H.Rept. 59-927, pp. 3-4; H.Rept. 59-2171, pp.
11-26; and S.Rept. 59-1782, pp. 2-3. In current practice, these tables are variously titled “ Comparative Statement of
New Budget Authority,” “Comparative Statement of Budget Authority,” or “Comparative Statement of New
(Obligational) Budget Authority.”
23 In some cases, the table might also list budgetary resources that are made available to the agency outside the annual
appropriations process to provide additional context. See, for example, the amounts for “fee accounts” listed for the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection in S.Rept. 113-198, p. 178.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

 the prior fiscal year,
 the President’s budget request (or “budget estimate”), and
 the committee’s recommendation.
Additional y, the JES wil list the final funding levels for the relevant accounts and other activities
that were agreed to when differences between the House and Senate were resolved on the
measure.
The example in Figure 2 below is from the Senate Appropriations Committee report
accompanying the FY2017 Department of Defense appropriations bil (S.Rept. 114-263, p. 250).
It includes al of the categories of information listed above.

Congressional Research Service

7

Figure 2. Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority
S.Rept. 114-263 accompanying the FY2017 Department of Defense Appropriations Bil , as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 3000)

Source: S.Rept. 114-263, p. 250.

CRS-8

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Directives Related to Budget Preparation and Budget Execution
In addition to the directives discussed above, appropriations reports may also contain additional
instructions related to budget preparation and budget execution. Such directives, which typical y
relate to many or all of the accounts in the bil , are usual y located in the first pages of the report.
The most common forms of these directives may specify the form of budget justifications for
future fiscal years, other reporting guidelines and committee initiatives, “program, project, or
activity” definitions, and reprogramming guidelines.
Form of Budget Justifications
Agencies’ congressional budget justifications supplement the President’s budget request with
additional information for the appropriations committees. Agencies provide this information to
the committees soon after the President’s budget request has been submitted.24 The budget
justifications’ descriptions of budgetary accounts are much more detailed than the President’s
budget submission and provides the appropriations committees with detailed information about
how agencies are using the funds within each account.25 This additional information helps the
appropriations committees better evaluate the budgetary resources that have been requested for
the upcoming fiscal year.
The form of an agency’s budget justifications and the information contained therein is general y
the result of consultations between the agency and the appropriations committees.26 Instructions
from the appropriations committees as to the content of budget justifications for future fiscal
years are often included in report language. These instructions may specify to agencies the level
of detail that should be provided for each account, as wel as specific directions for certain
programs or activities.27 In some instances, the agencies funded in the bil may be told how to
address certain informational deficiencies in the future, such as by providing more detail about
grants or staffing changes.28 An agency might also be more general y directed to coordinate the
content of certain analytical materials with the committee in advance of the submission.29 For
example, the following directives were included in the Senate committee report that accompanied
the FY2020 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies appropriations bil reported by the Committee (S.Rept. 116-109):
[T]he Committee directs that justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2021 budget
request by agencies funded under this act contain the customary level of detailed data and
explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests at the level of detail
contained in the funding table included at the end of the report. Among other items,
agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes
in the agency’s financial plan from prior year enactment, and detailed data on all programs
and comprehensive information on any office or agency restructurings. At a minimum,

24 Agency budget justifications are also typically made available on agency websites. For information on recent budget
justifications, see CRS Report R43470, Selected Agency Budget Justifications for FY2022 .
25 For further information on budget justifications generally, see CRS Report RS20268, Agency Justification of the
President’s Budget.
26 T he Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has generally instructed agencies to consult with the committees
ahead of modifications to the form of the budget justifications. See OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Subm ission, and
Execution of the Budget, July 2016, §§22.6 and 240.4.
27 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-100, p. 77.
28 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-453, pp. 56, 95; and H.Rept. 116-446, p. 6.
29 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-452, pp. 3-4.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

each agency must also provide adequate justification for funding and staffing changes for
each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are
proposed for fiscal year 2021 to the fiscal year 2020 enacted level.30
Other Reporting Guidelines and Committee Initiatives
Although reporting requirements for specific accounts are primarily located in the relevant
account summaries, language elsewhere in committee reports may provide general guidance
about the timing or form of agency reports to be provided. For example, the House
Appropriations Committee report that accompanied the FY2020 Financial Services and General
Government appropriations bil included the fol owing instructions related to agency reports
(H.Rept. 116-456):31
The Committee stresses that all reports are required to be completed in compliance with
the timeframe outlined for each respective directive. Furthermore, the Committee expects
that the specifications and conditions associated with funding appropriated by this Act shal
be accomplished in the manner as directed in the report.32
“Program, Project, or Activity” Definitions
A “program, project, or activity” (PPA) is an element in a budget account.33 For annual y
appropriated accounts, these budget accounts general y correspond to the paragraph headings in
appropriations acts. Such accounts general y provide a lump sum for the purposes of the account
and may also “set aside” specific amounts within that lump sum for certain purposes. In addition
to those statutory set-asides, it has been the practice for a number of decades that specific
elements in these budget accounts, including PPAs, have been identified in report language (and
also in the congressional budget justifications that correspond to that act).34 For example, the
House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the FY2021 Department of Agriculture,
Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bil (H.R. 7610) shown in
Figure 3 identified several PPAs in NIFA’s “Integrated Activities” account (H.Rept. 116-446, p.
33):35

30 S.Rept. 116-109, p. 5.
31 See also H.Rept. 116-444, pp. 5-6.
32 H.Rept. 116-456, p. 7.
33 GAO, Glossary of Terms, p. 80.
34 OMB Circular A-11, §22.6.
35 T hese PPAs had also been identified in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s congressional budget
justification, p. 21-23, available at https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/19nifa2021notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Figure 3. Specification of Programs, Projects, and Activities
FY2021 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food & Drug Administration regular
appropriations bil , as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 7610)

Source: H.Rept. 116-446, p. 33.
As with other funding al ocations in report language, the PPAs identified for each account al ow
Congress to provide direction as to the amounts to be expended for particular activities in which
the agency is engaged. The PPAs are also significant for “reprogramming,” which is discussed
further in the report section entitled “Reprogramming Guidelines.”
The PPAs identified for each account also become the basis for the administration of the budget
enforcement mechanism known as “sequestration.” This mechanism was established by the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA; P.L. 99-177) and can
result in the cancel ation of budgetary resources. If such a sequestration is required for a fiscal
year, budgetary resources for affected accounts must be reduced on a largely across-the-board
percentage basis. The BBEDCA, as amended, further requires that these reductions be
proportionately implemented by the agencies, within each affected account, at the level of its
PPAs.36
Starting in FY1987, the first full fiscal year after the sequestration mechanism was in effect for
discretionary spending, some House Appropriations Committee reports included PPA definitions
for the purposes of the BBEDCA.37 PPA definitions have continued to be included in
appropriations reports during the periods since FY1987 that sequestration could potential y affect
discretionary spending.38 Such report language might be used to clarify what a PPA is for the
purposes of the BBEDCA or impose a different definition of PPA than would otherwise be in
effect. For example, the House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the FY2021

36 BBEDCA, §256(k) (2 U.S.C. §906).
37 For early examples of this report language, see H.Rept. 99-669, p. 8; H.Rept. 99-686, p. 127; and H.Rept. 99-675, p.
71.
38 Congress modified and extended the BBEDCA’s sequestration procedures several times during the 1980s and 1990s.
As a result of these modifications, sequestration procedures were in place that could affect the amount of discretionary
appropriations available to agencies from FY1988 to FY2002. For more information about these procedures, see CRS
Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in Effect Between 1985 and 2002 . More recently, the Budget Control Act of
2011 (P.L. 112-25) further amended the sequestration procedures established by the BBEDCA, as amended. One of the
act’s modifications provided for the sequestration of discretionary funding if such funding exceeded statutory spending
limits. T hese statutory limits were modified several times by subsequent legislation. For more information, see CRS
Report R44874, The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions; and CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a
Budget Enforcem ent Process: Frequently Asked Questions.
Congressional Research Service

11

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
appropriations bil provided the following instructions (H.Rept. 116-452):
During fiscal year 2021, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ (PPA) shall mean any
item for which a dollar amount is contained in appropriations acts (including joint
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) and accompanying reports of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint
explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This definition shall apply to al
programs for which new budget (obligational) authority is provided, as well as to
discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or report
language.39
This language directed that only the items identified in the listed sources, which do not include
additional items identified in the FY2021 budget justification (if any), should be considered to be
a PPA for the purposes of any BBEDCA sequestration of discretionary spending in FY2021.40
Reprogramming Guidelines
Agencies are general y required to carry out the terms of appropriations acts as enacted, including
the statutory al ocation of funds therein. Both report language and the congressional budget
justifications further al ocate funds within annual y appropriated accounts into PPAs. In general,
when funds are moved between PPAs within the same account, this is referred to as a
“reprogramming” of funds.41 Agencies are general y permitted to reprogram funds, subject to
restrictions in law. This is in contrast to a “transfer”—that is, moving funds between accounts—
which requires a statutory authorization in order to occur.42
The level of statutory detail regarding the purposes and amounts for funds in annual
appropriations acts has changed considerably over time.43 Prior to the early 20th century, the
statutory language for appropriations accounts tended to include numerous line items specifying
particular purposes and amounts therein. During World War II, the appropriations committees
determined that certain agencies required more budgetary flexibility to respond to pressing
demands of the war.44 Consequently, authorization acts began to contain more detailed statutory
instructions to agencies, and appropriations acts began to provide more lump-sum appropriations
with detailed funding al ocations general y being provided through nonstatutory means such as
report language.45 As Congress provided accounts with larger lump-sum appropriations rather
than more numerous and detailed line-item appropriations, an understanding was reached that the

39 H.Rept. 116-452, p. 1.
40 For other recent examples of PPA definitions in Appropriations Committee reports, see H.Rept. 116-84, p. 15;
S.Rept. 116-111, p. 5; and S.Rept. 116-103, p. 6.
41 For further information with regard to reprogramming, see CRS Report R43098, Transfer and Reprogramming of
Appropriations: An Overview of Authorities, Lim itations, and Procedures.
42 See GAO, Office of the General Counsel, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (3rd ed., 2004), vol. 1, 2-24 and
2-30.
43 For a detailed discussion of this evolution, see CRS Report R43862, Changes in the Purposes and Frequency of
Authorizations of Appropriations.
44 Stephen Horn, Unused Power: The Work of the Senate Committee on Appropriations (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution, 1970), pp. 192-198. Additionally, see Louis Fisher, Presidential Spending Power (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1975), pp. 59-74.
45 Allen Schick, Legislation, Appropriations, and Budgets: The Development of Spending Decision -Making in
Congress, Congressional Research Service, May 1984, p. 31 (available to congressional clients upon request) .
Congressional Research Service

12

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

appropriations committee would be consulted when agencies reprogrammed the amounts for
items in those accounts that had not been specified in law.46
In current practice, statutory restrictions on reprogramming are usual y located in the general or
administrative provisions of appropriations acts. These restrictions often prohibit reprogramming
that meets certain criteria or require that agencies notify the appropriations committees before
reprogramming amounts above a certain spending threshold. For example, the FY2021 State-
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (Division K of P.L. 116-260) prohibits reprogramming
that:
 augments or changes existing programs, projects, or activities;
 relocates an existing office or employees;
 reduces by 10 funding for any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers
of personnel by 10 percent as approved by Congress; or
 results from any general savings, including savings from a reduction in
personnel, that would result in a change in existing PPAs approved by
Congress.47
Section 7015(b) of the act further provides that such reprogramming are al owable if the
appropriations committees are notified 15 days in advance of an obligation. Once appropriations
are enacted for a fiscal year, agencies typical y submit a “spending” or “operating” plan to the
appropriations committees to establish a baseline for the application of reprogramming and
transfer authorities for that fiscal year.48
In addition to the requirements in appropriations acts, guidance on the specific reprogramming
procedures that agencies are to follow is often provided in report language. Such guidance could
include:
 the level of detail that triggers notification requirements or special procedures for
certain accounts,49
 the form of notification and approval,
 the information that the committee requires from the agency in order to evaluate
the reprogramming request, and
 a final deadline for al such requests during the fiscal year.50
For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s report that accompanied the committee’s
FY2016 State-Foreign Operations bil included the following instructions that supplemented the
statutory guidance discussed above (S.Rept. 114-79):
The Committee directs the Department of State and other agencies funded by the act to
notify the Committee of reprogrammings of funds as required by sections 7015 and 7019
of the act at the most detailed level of either the CBJ, the act, or accompanying report, and
the Committee expects to be notified of any significant departure from the CBJ or of any

46 Fisher, Presidential Spending Power, pp. 76-77, 81-84.
47 P.L. 116-260, Division K, T itle VII, §7015(b).
48 See, for example, H.R. 7668 (116th Cong.), Section 608, for a statutory requirement for an operation plan and
additional specifications as to the contents. Such requirements and specifications may also be provided by report
language. See H.Rept. 116-452, pp. 2-3; H.Rept. 116-444, pp. 5-6; and H.Rept. 116-111, pp. 5-6.
49 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-452, pp. 2-3; and H.Rept. 116-445, pp. 10-11.
50 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-101, pp. 5-6; and H.Rept. 116-122, pp. 5-7.
Congressional Research Service

13

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

commitment that will require significant funding in future years. The Committee directs
that staffing levels and future year impacts of reprogrammings be included with such
notifications.51
Additional guidance in report language, such as the example above, could be provided annual y
or on a standing basis.52
Comparison with the Budget Resolution
When the House and Senate agree to a budget resolution, that resolution creates enforceable
limits on the level of budget authority provided in appropriations measures considered by the
House and Senate.53 Through the budget resolution, the appropriations committees receive a
procedural limit on the amount of discretionary budget authority for the upcoming fiscal year,
which is referred to as a 302(a) al ocation.54 Each appropriations committee further divides this
al ocation among its 12 subcommittees, which are referred to as the subcommittees’ 302(b)
subal ocations.55 The 302(b) subal ocation for a subcommittee restricts the amount of budget
authority available for the agencies, projects, and activities under its jurisdiction, effectively
acting as a procedural cap on the amount of spending in each of the 12 regular appropriations
bil s. The 302(a) al ocation and 302(b) subal ocations can be enforced through Congressional
Budget Act points of order raised during floor consideration of the appropriations bil s.56
The Budget Act was intended to provide a framework whereby Congress could evaluate the
future effects of past budgetary decisions, as wel as those that were currently under
consideration. To support this end, the Budget Act required the inclusion of certain information in
reports accompanying any legislation “providing new budget authority or tax expenditures” that
would be relevant to making such budgetary decisions.57 In addition to these general
requirements, for regular and supplemental appropriations measures (but not CRs) the Budget Act
mandates that committee reports accompanying regular and supplemental appropriations
measures include a statement comparing the funding levels in the measure to the applicable
302(b) subal ocations.58 This statement must also be included in a conference report, if available
in a timely manner, and is to be provided after consultation with the Congressional Budget
Office.59

51 S.Rept. 114-79, p. 11.
52 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-448, p. 11, which notes that the standing guidance with regard to reprogramming that
was previously provided in the explanatory statement corresponding to Division D of P.L. 116-94 continues to be in
effect.
53 As provided under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344; 88 Stat. 297; 2 U.S.C. §§601-688).
54 Congressional Budget Act, §302(a) (2 U.S.C. §633).
55 Congressional Budget Act, §302(b) (2 U.S.C. §633).
56 Primarily, these allocations are enforced through points of order under the Congressional Budget Act , Sections 302(f)
and 311. Enforcement of the statutory spending caps may occur through points of order that are raised during House or
Senate floor consideration under the Congressional Budget Act, Section 314(f). For further information with regard to
points of order in the congressional budget process, see CRS Report 97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional
Budget Process.
57 For example, whenever a committee reports a measure providing new budget authority or tax expenditures, the
committee must include in the accompanying report certain budgetary information, including an estimate by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the five-year outlay projections associated with the budget authority in the bill,
if such an estimate is “ timely submit ted before such report is filed” (Congressional Budget Act, §308(a)(1)(B) [2
U.S.C. §639]).
58 Congressional Budget Act, §308(a)(1)(A) (2 U.S.C. §639).
59 T he House reiterated this Budget Act requirement in Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2).
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 18

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

The information required by the Budget Act is usual y provided in a separate section of House
and Senate appropriations reports, as il ustrated in Figure 4 by the excerpt below from the House
report accompanying the FY2019 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bil :
Figure 4. Comparison with the Budget Resolution
H.Rept. 115-948 accompanying the FY2019 Department of Homeland Security, as reported by the House
Appropriations Committee (H.R. 6776)

Source: H.Rept. 115-948, p. 139.
Language Changing Existing Law
Both the House and the Senate have internal rules and long-standing practices that promote the
separation of money and policy decisions. These rules and practices are derived from the
principle that the debates and decisions about the activities of the federal government should be
distinct from the debates and decisions about the level at which those activities are funded. As a
result of those rules and long-standing practices, Congress has created distinct processes for
authorizing—which establishes government entities, activities, or programs in law—and
appropriating—which provides funding for authorized entities, activities, and programs.
One aspect of Congress’s separation of the authorization and appropriation processes is that the
rules of the House and Senate typical y prohibit legislative provisions from being included in
appropriations measures. These rules were formal y established in both chambers in the mid-19th
century to address concern that the inclusion of extraneous legislative matters was leading to
delays in the appropriations process.60 As currently provided in House Rule XXI, clause 2, the
House prohibits including legislative provisions in general appropriations bil s and amendments

60 For an overview of the development of the House’s rules against including legislative provisions in appropriations
measures during the 19th century, see Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United
States (Washington: GPO, 1907-1908), vol. 4, §3578. For a discussion of the Senate’s rules, see Schick, Legislation,
Appropriations, and Budgets, pp. 14-19 (available to congressional clients upon request).
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 20 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

thereto.61 Senate Rule XVI prohibits amendments to general appropriations measures that propose
legislative language not contained in existing law, except under certain circumstances.62
This restriction, however, does not apply to proper “limitation” provisions. These provisions
negatively restrict either the purpose, amount, or availability of appropriated funds without
changing existing or creating new law. Because they affect only how an agency uses appropriated
funds, limitation provisions are distinct from other forms of legislative provisions and are al owed
under House and Senate rules. Nevertheless, these provisions can limit the ability of agencies to
spend funds for specified purposes.63
Beginning in the 1930s, a number of the House Appropriations subcommittees began to include
either lists of legislation and limitations in appropriations measures (or statements to the effect
that the measure contained no new legislative provisions or limitations) in their accompanying
committee reports.64 However, the form and level of detail in those lists was highly variable. To
provide the House with more consistent information about the legislation that the House
Appropriations Committee was including in general appropriations measures, the House added a
requirement in 1974 that the Appropriations Committee reports include “a concise statement
describing the effect of any provision of the accompanying bil that directly or indirectly changes
the application of existing law.”65 This requirement, which encompasses legislative language, is
currently codified in House Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(1)(A).66 An example of such a list is provided
in the report accompanying the FY2021 Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies appropriations bil excerpted below in Figure 5.

61 In the House, general appropriations bills are the annual appropriations acts (or any combination thereof) and any
supplemental appropriations acts that cover mo re than one agency. CRs are not considered to be general appropriations
bills. See Johnson, Sullivan, and Wickham, House Practice, ch. 4, §3.
62 In the Senate, general appropriations bills are the annual appropriations acts (or any combination thereof) and any
supplemental or continuing appropriations acts that cover more than one agency or purpose. See Floyd M. Riddick and
Alan S. Frumin, Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 101-28
(Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 159.
63 For further information about these general principles, including what constitutes legislative provisions in
appropriations bills, see CRS Report R41634, Lim itations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural
Issues.
64 For early examples of these lists, see H.Rept. 73-1195, pp. 17-21; H.Rept. 73-335, p. 15; and H.Rept. 73-449, pp. 27-
28.
65 H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong. For further information on the purpose of this requirement, see House debate, Congressional
Record, vol. 120, part 26 (October 8, 1974), pp. 34416 -34419.
66 In addition to the requirement for a summary of changes in existing law, House Rule XIII, clause 3(e)(1)—
sometimes referred to as the “Ramseyer Rule”—requires that all committee reports include a comparative print of
language in the bill “ proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part thereof.” Any legislative language that would repeal
or amend existing law would also be included in that comparative display.
Congressional Research Service

16

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Figure 5. Changes in the Application of Existing Laws
H.Rept. 116-452 , accompanying the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development appropriations, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 7616)

Source: H.Rept. 116-452, p. 163.
In the Senate, there is no similar rule that requires the Senate Appropriations Committee to
include in committee reports a list or description of legislative provisions in the appropriations
measures or committee amendments reported from the committee. However, Senate Rule XXVI,
paragraph 12, sometimes referred to as the “Cordon Rule,” requires that the committee report
include a comparative print of language “repealing or amending any statute or part thereof.” Any
legislative language that would directly repeal or amend existing law would be included in that
comparative display in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s report.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
The rules of the House and Senate distinguish between authorizations and appropriations. These
rules also require that an agency, program, or activity be authorized by law prior to when
appropriations are provided. The authorization for subsequent appropriations may be explicit (i.e.,
“there is hereby authorized to be appropriated”) or implied by the statutory authority that creates
and governs the entity.67 An appropriation is said to be “unauthorized” when such authorization
(explicit or implicit) has never been enacted or, if previously enacted, has terminated or expired.68

67 In the absence of an explicit authorization of appropriations, it is generally understood that statutory authority to
administer a program or engage in an activity, sometimes referred to as “ organic” or “ enabling” legislation, also
provides implicit authorization to appropriate for such program or activity (GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations
Law, 2-54 to 2-55).
68 For a summary of congressional practices related to the form of authorizations and their effect on the occurrence and
frequency of unauthorized appropriations, see CRS Report R43862, Changes in the Purposes and Frequency of
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 22 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Congressional concerns about providing appropriations not authorized by law are long standing.69
Like the prohibitions on legislative language, the formal rules of the House and Senate have
placed restrictions on the consideration of appropriations not authorized by law for more than a
150 years—dating back to 1837 in the House and 1850 in the Senate.70 House Rule XXI, clause
2, prohibits appropriations not previously authorized by law in general appropriations measures
and amendments thereto. In contrast, the prohibition on unauthorized appropriations in Senate
Rule XVI, paragraph 1, applies in a more narrow set of circumstances and, most significantly, to
amendments offered by individual Senators during consideration of general appropriations
measures.71
Despite these rules, appropriations not authorized by law have been provided for certain purposes
for more than a century, and with increasing frequency over the past several decades. In response
to concerns that information about such appropriations was lacking during their congressional
consideration, both the House and Senate adopted rules requiring that committee reports for
general appropriations measures identify the unauthorized appropriations contained therein.72 In
the Senate, these requirements were initial y adopted in 1970 and are currently in Senate Rule
XVI, paragraph 7.73 This rule provides that the Senate Appropriations Committee report must
identify each amendment containing an appropriation that “is not made to carry out the provisions
of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate
during that session.” Even when the Senate Appropriations Committee reports an original Senate
bil and not an amendment to a House-passed appropriations bil , the committee’s report usual y
includes a list of unauthorized appropriations included in the bil . An example of this Senate list is
provided by the report accompanying the FY2018 Departments of Commerce and Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bil excerpted in Figure 6 below:

Authorizations of Appropriations.
69 For a summary of congressional practices related to the form of authorizations and their effect on the occurrence and
frequency of unauthorized appropriations, see CRS Report R43862, Changes in the Purposes and Frequency of
Authorizations of Appropriations.
70 Schick, Legislation, Appropriations, and Budgets, pp. 16-17.
71 For further information on congressional rules that restrict appropriations not authorized by law, see CRS Report
R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues.
72 See footnotes 54 and 55 for an explanation of what constitutes a general appropriations bill under the rules of the
House and Senate.
73 S.Res. 413, 91st Cong. For an explanation of the specific context that led to the adoption of this rule, see
Congressional Record, vol. 116, part 25 (September 25, 1970), p. 33785.
Congressional Research Service

18

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Figure 6. Senate List of Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
S.Rept. 115-139 accompanying the FY2018 Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bil (S. 1662)

Source: S.Rept. 115-139, p. 130.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 24 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

In the House, prior to the adoption of a formal rule, the lists of legislation and limitations in
committee reports that were discussed in the “Language Changing Existing Law” section above
would occasional y include information about unauthorized appropriations.74 In 1995, at the
beginning of the 104th Congress, the House amended its rules to explicitly require that House
Appropriations Committee reports accompanying regular appropriations bil s include a separate
list of appropriations not currently authorized by law.75 Six years later, at the beginning of the
107th Congress, this rule was expanded to require more detailed information, including:76
 the last year for which such appropriations were authorized,
 the level of appropriations authorized for that year,
 the actual level of appropriations for that year, and
 the level of appropriations in the bil .
This requirement is currently codified in House Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(1)(B).
The House’s rationale for this list also relates to issues that can arise between the authorizing and
appropriations committees when legislative provisions or unauthorized appropriations are
included in appropriations bil s. For the past few decades, special rules have been used to waive
points of order against unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions that are in the
committee version of the bil .77 However, if the authorizing committee of jurisdiction objects to
any of those provisions, the Rules Committee wil often choose to leave them unprotected by the
waiver in the special rule.
A recent example of the House Appropriations Committee’s list of Appropriations Not Authorized
by Law is provided by the report accompanying the FY2018 Commerce, Justice, and Science
appropriations bil (H.Rept. 115-231, pp. 103-109), which is excerpted in Figure 7 below:

74 See, for example, H.Rept. 93-1132, pp. 41-42; H.Rept. 99-747, pp. 100-115; and H.Rept. 103-190, pp. 168-171.
75 H.Res. 6, 104th Cong. T he requirements in this rule do not apply to classified intelligence or national security PPAs.
76 H.Res. 5, 107th Cong.
77 For further information, see CRS Report R42933, Regular Appropriations Bills: Terms of Initial Consideration and
Am endm ent in the House, FY1996-FY2015.
Congressional Research Service

20

Figure 7. House List of Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
H.Rept. 115-231 accompanying the FY2018 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bil , as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R.
3267).

Source: H.Rept. 115-231, p. 104.
CRS-21

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Rescissions and Transfers
A rescission is a provision of law that cancels previously enacted budget authority. Such
provisions are used to cancel funds for programs or projects. Rescissions of unexpired budget
authority carried in appropriations acts may also serve to offset increases in funding elsewhere in
the bil relative to the applicable 302(a) and 302(b) al ocations and meet statutory limits on
discretionary spending.78
Transfers occur when funds are moved between accounts and require explicit statutory authority
in order to occur. Such transfer authority—that is, the provision in law that authorizes an agency
to transfer funds (usual y up to a certain amount or percentage of an appropriation)—may be
provided in authorizing laws or in annual appropriations acts. Transfer provisions may also
mandate that a transfer occur in a specified amount or at a minimum (“no less than”) budgetary
level.
Rescissions and transfer authority are considered to be legislative because they change existing
law.79 Although the House Appropriations Committee does not general y have jurisdiction over
legislative language,80 its jurisdiction was expanded by the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974 to include transfers and rescissions of funds previously provided in appropriations acts. This
expansion was intended to provide more flexibility to the committee.81 To provide greater
transparency to Congress as to the extent to which rescissions and transfers were being proposed
by the House Appropriations Committee, the House adopted a new rule requiring that
appropriations bil s and joint resolutions have separate headings for “Rescissions” and “Transfers
of Unexpended Balances.”82 That rule also requires that the committee reports accompanying
those bil s have a separate section that lists al such proposed rescissions and transfers. These
requirements are currently codified in House Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(2).
For example, in the report accompanying the FY2021 Department of the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies appropriations bil , the following lists were included:

78 For more information about the budgetary scorekeeping of rescissions, see scorekeeping rule 8 in H.Rept. 105-217.
79 Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, H.Doc. 115-177, 115th Cong., 2nd sess.,
compiled by T homas J. Wickham, Parliamentarian (Washington: GPO, 2019), §1063, pp. 905-906.
80 T he current jurisdiction of the House Appropriations Committee is codified in House Rule X, clause 1(b).
81 H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong. T he rationale for this change is discussed more extensively in H.Rept. 93-916, part II, pp. 29-
30.
82 H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong., H.Rept. 93-916, part II, pp. 29-30.
Congressional Research Service

22

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Figure 8. Rescissions and Transfers
H.Rept. 116-448 accompanying the FY2021 Department of the Interior and Environment appropriations
bil , as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 7612)

Source: H.Rept. 116-448, p. 160.
Congressional Research Service

23

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

In the Senate, transfers and rescissions are also considered to be legislative language,83 but only
rescissions are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Committee.84 However, there is no
requirement that such provisions be separately identified in the committee report accompanying
an appropriations measure.
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending (“Earmarks”)
The House and Senate have each adopted rules that require disclosure of information related to
“congressional earmarks” and “congressional y directed spending items” under certain
circumstances. Under both chambers’ rules, these terms are understood to mean a provision of a
measure or an item in a committee report that either provides, authorizes, or recommends:
 a specific amount of budgetary resources to a specific entity or targeted to a
particular congressional district, locality, or state; and
 is included primarily at the request of a Member.85
The information about these spending items is included in committee reports accompanying
appropriations measures reported by both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as
wel as explanatory text accompanying measures not reported by the appropriations committees.86
With regard to appropriations measures reported from the appropriations committees, the practice
of the committees is to include a list of congressional earmarks or congressional y directed
spending items contained in such measures (and the measure’s accompanying report) in the
committee reports.87 House Rule XXI, clause 9, and Senate Rule XLIV also require the disclosure
of earmarks or congressional y directed spending items contained in a conference report (and
JESs), as wel as additional types of measures and amendments.88
The following table from the FY2022 Financial Services and General Government regular
appropriations bil (H.R. 4345) reported by the House Appropriations Committee is an il ustrative
example of how committee reports are used to disclose earmarks contained in an appropriations
bil or its accompanying committee report:

83 For rescissions, see Riddick and Frumin, Riddick’s Senate Procedure, p. 176.
84 T he current jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Committee is codified in Senate Rule XXV, paragraph 1(b).
85 T he requested budgetary resources may take the form of “discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other
spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, or other expenditure.” Such budgetary resources also have to be
provided outside of a “statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.” See House Rule XXI,
clause 9(e), and Senate Rule XLIIV, clause 5(a).
86 Under House Rule XXI, clause 9, such disclosure is required to occur in either committee reports for measures
reported by committees or JESs accompanying conference reports. For measures not reported by a committee, the chair
of the applicable committee is required to provide a list of earmarks or a statement that the measure does not contain
any earmarks.
Under Senate Rule XLIV, such disclosure is required to occur via “ publicly accessible congressional website [for] each
such item through lists, charts, or other similar means” for appropriations measures reported by committees, unreported
measures, and conference reports. Paragraph 4(b) of Rule XLIV states that committee reports containing a list of
congressionally directed spending items and the names of the Senators who requested them satisfies the requirements
of Rule XLIV for a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee.
87 T he House Appropriations Committee has instituted additional disclosure practices for the FY2022 appropriations
cycle. Members who request earmarks must disclose information about those requests on their official House websites,
and the committee has also created a website that compiles links to these disclosures, available at
https://appropriations.house.gov/transparency.
88 For more information, see CRS Report RS22866, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee
Requirem ents; and CRS Report RS22867, Earm ark Disclosure Rules in the Senate: Mem ber and Com m ittee
Requirem ents.
Congressional Research Service

24

Figure 9. Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending
FY2022 Financial Services and General Government regular appropriations bil (H.R. 4345)

Source: H.Rept. 117-79, p. 127.

CRS-25

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

When the accompanying bil or report contains earmarks, such tables identify the following
information about each earmark and congressional y directed spending item:
 the affected agency and appropriations account,
 the final recipient of the funds,
 the name of the project, the amount of earmarked funding provided, and
 the name of the Representative(s) or Senator(s) who submitted the request.
Such tables are also included in conference reports and explanatory statements.89
When the bil or report contains no earmarks, committee reports from the House Appropriations
Committee accompanying regular appropriations bil s (as wel as JESs) often include a statement
indicating that neither the appropriations bil nor its accompanying committee report contains
earmarks.90 The report accompanying the FY2022 Legislative Branch regular appropriations bil s
provides an il ustrative example of such a statement.
Figure 10. Statement Declaring No Earmarks or Congressionally Directed Spending
Items Included in Bill or Accompanying Report
FY2022 Legislative Branch regular appropriations bil (H.R. 4346)

Source: H.Rept. 117-80, p. 46.
Appropriations Report Language Development
Agency, Public, and Member Input
In general, the report language accompanying an appropriations measure is developed by the
appropriations committees in each chamber. While it is a committee product, it has significant
importance for the congressional consideration of the appropriations measure it accompanies, as
wel as agency budget execution once the measure becomes law. When drafting reports, the
appropriations committees engage in certain formal and informal practices through which they
may receive input on report language from a range of stakeholders—both within and outside of

89 See H.Rept. 111-366.
Additionally, House Rule XXI, clause 9(b), requires the disclosure of earmarks that were not committed by either
house to a conference report nor contained in a committee report of either house on such bill or a companion measure.
T he practice is to denote such earmarks with an asterisk in the JES. For an example of this practice, see U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Division C—Energy and Water
Developm ent and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 , committee print, 110th Cong., 1st sess., 2007, p. 621,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT -110HPRT39564/pdf/CPRT -110HPRT39564-DivisionC.pdf.
90 Reports from the Senate Appropriations Committee have typically not included such statements.
Congressional Research Service

26

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

Congress. For example, information from an agency’s budget justification submitted to the
appropriations committees after the President’s budget request may inform the committees’
prospective funding al ocations and report directives.91 Other communications between the
committees and agencies, both before and after the President’s budget submission, may also help
inform the language that is ultimately included in the committees’ reports. In addition,
stakeholders and other interested groups outside of Congress may communicate their report
language and other appropriations preferences to the appropriations committees through letters or
other communications.
Members of the House and Senate may also communicate to the appropriations committees their
preferences with regard to each of the 12 annual appropriations bil s and accompanying report
language. While such communications might occur throughout the budget cycle, the committees
encourage Members to express their preferences for the upcoming fiscal year through the
submission of “programmatic and language requests,” as wel as requests for congressional y
directed spending items, in the beginning stages of the annual appropriations process.
Programmatic requests are to fund a program in the bil or report at a specified level. Language
requests are for specific bil or report language that is intended to encourage or direct some action
be taken—or not taken—by an agency. All of these requests are usual y required to be submitted
to the appropriations committees shortly after the President’s budget request has been presented
to Congress.92 The parameters for these requests may vary for each of the appropriations bil s and
are typical y specified through Dear Colleague letters or other communications from the
committees.93
Once programmatic, language, and earmark requests for a bil are submitted, each appropriations
committee must decide whether to include the requested language in the bil or accompanying
report, include a modified version of the request, or not include the request at al . In some
instances, if language is requested for inclusion in the bil , the committee might decide to include
a version of that language in the committee report instead.
Committee and Initial Floor Consideration
Each regular appropriations bil reported from appropriations committees is usual y accompanied
by a written committee report. Committee preparation of an appropriations bil for a markup also
includes developing a draft of the committee report that wil accompany it. When the House or
Senate Appropriations Committee meets to mark up each appropriations bil , amendments to the
draft report may also be offered and considered. In the House, the final version of the House
Appropriations Committee’s written report is filed at the same time the bil is reported to the
House. In the Senate, it is typical y filed at the same time the bil is reported or soon thereafter.
While appropriations measures reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee typical y
receive formal committee reports, those regular appropriations measures that are not reported

91 An early discussion of the role of agency budget justifications in the formulation of report language is in Jeffrey L.
Pressman, House vs. Senate: Conflict in the Appropriations Process (New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, 1966), p .
18.
92 Because supplemental appropriations measures are considered on an as-needed basis, there is usually not a formal
process for making programmatic requests to the appropriations committees.
93 For more information, see the House Appropriations Committees’ website at https://appropriations.house.gov/
appropriations-requests.
Congressional Research Service

27

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

from the Senate Appropriations Committee are often associated with draft committee report text
that is released in the context of negotiations to resolve differences.94
Because the written committee report is a product of that committee’s deliberations rather than a
legislative measure itself, it is not directly amendable during the subsequent floor c onsideration of
the appropriations measure. However, Members have previously offered floor amendments that
would have the effect of directly or indirectly superseding the directives or funding al ocations in
the committee report language. For example, during the 117th Congress, the House Appropriations
Committee report for the FY2022 Energy and Water Development appropriations bil contained a
provision that al ocated “$20,000,000 for the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity” within
the Department of Energy’s “Departmental Administration” account.95 Subsequently, an
amendment was offered on the House floor that proposed to insert the following provision: “None
of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the Department of Energy’s office of
Economic Impact and Diversity.”96 Had that amendment become law as part of the appropriations
measures, it would have prevented the $20,000,000 in set-aside funds from being spent for the
office’s activities outlined in the committee report.
Resolving Differences
When congressional negotiators resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of an
appropriations measure, those negotiators are members of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. In addition to producing a final version of the measure, these negotiators also agree
to further report language in the form of a JES or other explanatory text. In instances where
explanatory text is entered into the Congressional Record, a provision of the measure usual y
indicates that it is to be treated by the agencies in the same way as a JES.97 This explanatory text
is usual y considered to be the most authoritative source of congressional legislative intent with
regard to that measure.98 Once the final version of the legislative text has been agreed to by the
House and Senate, there are no further formal opportunities to make changes to the
accompanying report language.
The explanatory text may be used to reconcile any differences between the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees’ reports. For example, the House and Senate committee report
language may address certain issues in ways that are difficult to reconcile harmoniously. In these

94 For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not report any of the FY2021 regular appropriations bills.
T he committee published a press release in November 2020 that included links to the bill text and explanatory
statements for the committee’s drafts of the 12 regular appropriations bills. See Senate Appropriations Committee,
“Committee Releases FY21 Bills in Effort to Advance Process, Produce Bipartisan Results,” press release, November
10, 2020, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-fy21-bills-in-effort-to-advance-process-
produce-bipartisan-results.
95 H.Rept. 117-98, p. 158.
96 Amendment 94 in H.Rept. 117-109, considered and disposed en bloc in H.Amdt. 83, to H.R. 4502 (117th Cong.);
House debate, Congressional Record, vol. 167, no. 131 (July 27, 2021), p. H4071 -H4074.
97 For example, during the 116th Congress, differences between the chambers with regard to H.R. 133, an omnibus
measure that contained all 12 regular appropriations bills, were resolved using an amendment exchange and not a
conference report. On December 21, 2020, explanatory text related to that omnibus measure was entered into the
Congressional Record (vol. 166, no. 218, books III-IV, December 21, 2020, pp. H7879-H8851). Section 4 of H.R. 133
provided that “ the explanatory statement regarding this Act, printed in the House section of the Congressional Record
on or about December 21, 2020, and submitted by the Chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House,
shall have the same effect with respect to the allocation of funds and implementation of divisions A through L of this
Act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference.” For a further discussion of this practice,
see CRS Report, Regular Appropriations Acts: Selected Statutory Interpretation Issues.
98 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 2-98 and 2-99.
Congressional Research Service

28

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

instances, the explanatory text normal y seeks to clarify how the affected agency is to proceed. In
other cases, one committee might have included language in its report that addresses an issue to
which the other committee’s report is silent. If disagreement exists between the committees with
regard to this report language, the explanatory statement might clarify what action the agency
should take. On the other hand, if the original committee language is ultimately acceptable to
both committees, the explanatory statement might be silent due to an expectation that the agency
wil follow the original directive.
In current practice, the explanatory statement accompanying the final version of an appropriations
measure usual y states explicitly how the explanatory text relates to the language contained in any
applicable appropriations committees’ reports. For example, the explanatory statement
accompanying the FY2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 133), which contained al 12
of the FY2021 appropriations acts (Divisions A-L), contained instructions as part of the
explanation of each of the 12 regular appropriations acts, similar to the following instruction for
the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration regular
appropriations act (Division A of H.R. 133):
The explanatory statement accompanying this division is approved and indicates
congressional intent. Unless otherwise noted, the language set forth in H.Rept. 116-446
carries the same weight as language included in this explanatory statement and should be
complied with unless specifically addressed to the contrary in this explanatory statement.
While some language is repeated for emphasis, it is not intended to negate the language
referred to above unless expressly provided herein.99
As a consequence of these interactions between JESs (or other such explanatory text) and
committee reports, the committee reports that accompany the bil s initial y reported by the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees might also provide an important indication of
congressional intent even after an appropriations measure has been enacted.100
Continuing Resolutions
In recent years, appropriations measures that provide continuing appropriations based on a
funding formula have typical y not been accompanied by report language, even w hen such
appropriations are for an entire fiscal year.101 For example, for the FY2013 Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6), which contained both regular appropriations
for certain agencies and full-year continuing appropriations for others, detailed explanatory text
was provided only for the accounts that received regular appropriations.102 For full-year CRs, the
committee report language from the current fiscal year that accompanies the regular
appropriations covered by that CR may provide some indication of congressional intent.103 The
extent to which the funding provided via the CR’s formula is difficult to reconcile with the

99 Congressional Record, vol. 166, no. 218, book III (December 21, 2020), p. H7879.
100 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, 2-99 and 2-100.
101 Although it is not currently the practice to consider CRs in committee and provide them with report language,
committees commonly considered and reported th ese types of measures as recently as the 102nd Congress. (See, e.g.,
H.Rept. 102-216 and H.Rept. 102-266.) Because the form of appropriations in CRs usually differs from regular and
supplemental appropriations measures, many of the report language components for the committee reports
accompanying those CRs also differ from those that are discussed is this report .
102 See Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, 127 Stat. 198 -437.
103 A CR typically funds activities that are usually identified with reference to unenacted appropriations measures for
the current fiscal year or the appropriations enacted for a previous fiscal year. T hese referenced measures or laws are
the CR’s “coverage.” For further information, see CRS Report R46595, Continuing Resolutions: Overview of
Com ponents and Practices.
Congressional Research Service

29

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Components and Development

al ocations and directives in the relevant committee reports, however, may limit those reports’
applicability. Furthermore, the lack of relevant explanatory text accompanying the CR may
further limit the effectiveness of the directives in the current year House and Senate committee
reports when they appear to conflict.

Author Information

Kevin P. McNellis

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Acknowledgments
This report is an updated version of CRS Report R44124, Appropriations Report Language:
Overview of Development, Components, and Issues for Congress, which was published in 2015.
The author thanks Jessica Tol estrup, the author of that report, for her generous assistance and
guidance in producing this updated version.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R44124 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED
30