Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

July 28, 2015 – March 22, 2023 R44124

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of
March 22, 2023
Development and Components
Drew C. Aherne
Congressional reports accompany appropriations measures when they are reported by the House
Analyst on Congress and
and Senate Appropriations Committees or when the House and Senate use a conference
the Legislative Process
committee to resolve differences between the versions of an appropriations measure as passed by

their respective chambers. If a method other than a conference committee is used to negotiate the
final version of an appropriations measure, an explanatory text may be printed or entered in the

Congressional Record. 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 affects how federal agencies interpret and obligate the funds
provided in 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 report provides an overview of how the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees develop appropriations report language as well as its key components.
In current practice, appropriations report language has a number of components. Much of the language is devoted to a
“section-by-section” analysis of the accounts within each of the corresponding appropriation bills. It also includes tables that
provide 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. Report language also typically includes 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 of 1974 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 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 or community project funding items (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 accompanying general
appropriations measures.

Congressional Research Service

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

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 currently assumes the consideration of 12 regular appropriations bills to provide
discretionary budget authority for the upcoming fiscal year.2 If some or all of the regular
appropriations measures are not enacted before the beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1,
one or more continuing resolutions (CRs) may 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, typically to
address emergency or other additional funding needs.3
A number of internal and external institutional factors influence Congress’s consideration of
appropriations measures. Long-standing congressional rules and practices encourage the
separation of policy and funding decisions (“authorizations” and “appropriations,” respectively)
as well as constraints on the overall level of appropriations based on previously agreed-upon
fiscal policies and goals, such as a budget resolution or statutory spending caps. External
considerations, which largely derive from the relationship between Congress and the agencies
funded through the annual appropriations process, include the degree of flexibility granted to
agencies for determining how funds should be spent and congressional oversight of agencies’ use
of appropriated funds.
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees primarily use report language associated with
regular appropriations measures for two broad purposes. First, report language explains the
provisions of an appropriations measure to the Representatives and Senators who will
subsequently consider the accompanying measure. Second, Congress uses report language 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 are generally expected to comply with a report’s
directives. One congressional scholar observed, “The criticisms and suggestions carried in the
reports accompanying each bill are expected to influence the subsequent behavior of the agency.
Committee reports are not the law, but it is expected that they be regarded almost as seriously.”4
Additionally, Congress may choose to incorporate certain provisions of the appropriations

1 An appropriation is a type of budget authority that provides the legal authority for agencies to incur financial
obligations and to make payments (or outlays) from the Treasury for specific purposes. For a further explanation of
these terms, see U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget
Process, GAO-05-734SP, September 2005, pp. 20-23, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-05-734sp.pdf.
2 The congressional budget process distinguishes between discretionary spending, which is controlled through
appropriations acts under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and direct (or
mandatory) spending, which is controlled through legislation under the jurisdiction of the legislative committees of
Congress. For more information, see CRS Report R46240, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by James V.
Saturno.
3 For more information on the congressional appropriations process, see CRS Report R47106, The Appropriations
Process: A Brief Overview, by James V. Saturno and Megan S. Lynch.
4 Richard Fenno, The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1966), p. 18.
Congressional Research Service

1

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

committee reports into the text of appropriations measures via statutory reference. That is, the text
of an appropriations measure may explicitly provide that specific language from the
accompanying report be considered statutory.5 For these reasons, congressional interest in the
appropriations process also includes the development of the report language that accompanies
those measures.
Report language is typically used at two stages of the legislative process to supplement the
legislative text of an appropriations measure. First, written reports may accompany the version of
a bill reported by the House or Senate Appropriations Committee to its respective parent chamber.
The House requires that written reports accompany bills reported by all committees, first
implementing such a requirement in 1880.6 While Senate rules do not require them, written
reports generally accompany or are otherwise associated with measures reported by committees.
Second, when the House and Senate have resolved the differences between their separate versions
of a measure, they provide an explanatory statement prior to final action by each chamber.
This report provides an overview of appropriations report language. The first section of the report
summarizes how appropriations report language is developed. The second section explains the
origins, purposes, and forms of common or required report language components that are
particular to appropriations measures, with illustrative examples.
Appropriations Report Language Development
Agency, Public, and Member Input
In general, the language in a report accompanying an appropriations measure is developed by the
appropriations subcommittee responsible for drafting that measure before being approved by the
full committee in each chamber. While it is a committee product, it has significant importance for
the congressional consideration of the appropriations measure it accompanies as well as agency
budget execution once the measure becomes law. When drafting reports, the appropriations
subcommittees 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 Congress. For
example, information from an agency’s budget justification submitted to the appropriations
committees after the President’s budget request may inform the subcommittees’ prospective
funding allocations and report directives.7 Other communications between the subcommittees and
agencies, both before and after the President’s budget submission, may also help inform the
language that is ultimately included in the 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 subcommittees
their preferences with regard to each of the 12 annual appropriations bills and accompanying

5 For an example of this type of statutory incorporation by reference, see p. 651 of the FY2021 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-260). For more information, see CRS Report R46899, Regular Appropriations Acts:
Selected Statutory Interpretation Issues, by Sean M. Stiff.
6 Charles W. Johnson, John V. Sullivan, and Thomas 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, sec. 28. The current
requirement for committees to file reports is codified in House Rule XIII, clause 2.
7 For more on agency budget justifications, see CRS Report R47090, Executive Agency Justification of the President’s
Budget: In Brief, by Dominick A. Fiorentino.
Congressional Research Service

2

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

report language. While such communications might occur throughout the budget cycle, the
committees encourage Members to express their preferences for the upcoming fiscal year in the
beginning stages of the annual appropriations process. Through this process, Members may
submit “programmatic and language requests,” as well as requests for congressionally directed
spending or community project funding items (commonly referred to as “earmarks”).
Programmatic requests are to fund an account in the bill or report at a specified level. Language
requests are for specific bill or report language intended to encourage or direct some action be
taken—or not taken—by an agency. All of these requests are usually required to be submitted to
the appropriations subcommittees shortly after the President’s budget request has been presented
to Congress, generally in the late winter or early spring.8 The parameters for these requests may
vary for each appropriations bill and are typically specified through “Dear Colleague” letters or
other communications from the subcommittees.
Once programmatic, language, and earmark requests for a bill are submitted, each appropriations
subcommittee must decide whether to include the requested language in the bill or accompanying
report, include a modified version of the request, or not include the request at all. In some
instances, if language is requested for inclusion in the bill, the subcommittee might decide to
include a version of that language in the committee report instead.
Committee and Initial Floor Consideration
Each regular appropriations bill reported from the appropriations committees is usually
accompanied by a written committee report. Subcommittee and committee preparation of an
appropriations bill for a markup also includes developing a draft of the committee report that will
accompany it. When the House or Senate Appropriations Committee or their subcommittees meet
to mark up each appropriations bill, 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 bill is reported to the House. In the Senate, it is typically filed
at the same time the bill is reported or soon thereafter. Regular appropriations measures that are
not reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee are often associated with draft committee
report text that is released in the context of negotiations to resolve differences.9
Since the report is a product of that committee’s deliberations rather than a legislative measure
itself, it is not directly amendable during the subsequent floor consideration 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 allocations in the committee
report language.10

8 For more, see CRS Report R47031, The House Appropriations Process: Opportunities for Member Participation, by
Megan S. Lynch. Because supplemental appropriations measures are considered on an as-needed basis, there is not a
formal process for making programmatic requests to the Appropriations Committees.
9 For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not report any of the FY2023 regular appropriations bills.
Instead, the committee chair issued a press release in July 2022 containing draft bill text and explanatory statements for
all 12 regular appropriations bills. See Senate Appropriations Committee, “Chairman Leahy Releases Fiscal Year 2023
Senate Appropriations Bills,” press release, July 28, 2022, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/
breaking-chairman-leahy-releases-fiscal-year-2023-senate-appropriations-bills.
10 For example, during the 117th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee report for the FY2022 Energy and
Water Development appropriations bill contained a provision that allocated $20 million for the Office of Economic
Impact and Diversity within the Department of Energy’s “Departmental Administration” account. Subsequently, an
amendment (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], pp. H4071-H4074) was offered on the
House floor that proposed making none of the funds appropriated in the act available for the Office of Economic
Congressional Research Service

3

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Resolving Differences
When congressional negotiators resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of an
appropriations measure, those negotiators are appointed from among the membership of the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees.11 In addition to producing a final version of the
measure, these negotiators also agree to further report language in the form of a Joint Explanatory
Statement (JES) or other explanatory text. If a conference committee is used to resolve the
differences between the chambers, the conference report is filed with the House and printed as a
House numbered report, and it is accompanied by the JES. If another method is used to negotiate
the final version of an appropriations measure, the explanatory text may be printed in some other
form or it may be entered in the Congressional Record. In such instances, a provision in the
measure usually indicates that the explanatory text is to be treated by the agencies in the same
way as a formal JES.12 This explanatory text is usually considered the most authoritative source
of congressional intent with regard to that measure. 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.
The explanatory text may be used to reconcile any differences reflected in the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees’ reports. For example, the House and Senate committee report
language may address an issue in ways that are difficult to reconcile harmoniously. In these
instances, the explanatory text normally 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 on
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 report language is not in conflict or is
ultimately acceptable to both committees, the explanatory statement might be silent due to an
expectation that the agency will follow the original directive.
In current practice, the explanatory statement accompanying the final version of an appropriations
measure usually instructs explicitly how the explanatory text relates to the language contained in
any applicable appropriations committee reports. For example, the explanatory statement
accompanying the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-328), which included all
12 of the FY2023 regular appropriations acts (Divisions A-L), contained such instructions as part
of the explanation of each of the 12 acts. The following instruction was for the Department of
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration regular appropriations act
(Division A of P.L. 117-328):

Impact and Diversity. Had that amendment been adopted and become law as part of the measure, it would have
prevented the $20 million in set-aside funds from being spent for the office’s activities outlined in the committee
report.
11 For more information on procedures related to resolving differences between the chambers, see CRS Report 98-696,
Resolving Legislative Differences in Congress: Conference Committees and Amendments Between the Houses, by
Elizabeth Rybicki.
12 For example, during the 117th Congress, differences between the chambers with regard to H.R. 2617, an omnibus
measure containing all 12 regular appropriations bills for FY2023, were resolved using an amendment exchange and
not a conference report. On December 20, 2022, explanatory text related to that omnibus measure was entered into the
Congressional Record (vol. 168, no.198, December 20, 2022, pp. S7819-S8551). Section 4 of H.R. 2617 provided that
“the explanatory statement regarding this Act, printed in the Senate section of the Congressional Record on or about
December 19, 2022, and submitted by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, 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.”
Congressional Research Service

4

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

The explanatory statement accompanying this division is approved and indicates
congressional intent. Unless otherwise noted, the language set forth in H.Rept. 117-392
carries the same weight as language included in this joint explanatory statement and should
be complied with unless specifically addressed to the contrary in this joint explanatory
statement. While some language is repeated for emphasis, it is not intended to negate the
language referred to above unless expressly provided herein.13
As a consequence of these interactions between a JES (or other such explanatory text) and
committee reports, the committee reports that accompany the bills initially 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.
Continuing Resolutions
In recent years, appropriations measures that provide continuing appropriations (commonly
referred to as a “continuing resolution” or “CR”) based on a funding formula have typically not
been accompanied by report language, even when such appropriations are for the remainder of
the fiscal year.14 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.15 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.16 The funding provided via the CR’s
formula may be difficult to reconcile with the allocations and directives in the relevant committee
reports, however, and may in turn 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.
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 factors. In many cases, the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees developed components and related practices to better enable
their oversight of federal agencies. Other components originated 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 all of the appropriations committee reports and, in some
cases, a JES (or other explanatory text) that resolves differences between House and Senate
committee reports. This section describes the origin, purpose, and current form of report language
components and provides illustrative examples of each.

13 Congressional Record, vol. 168, no. 198 (December 20, 2022), p. S7820.
14 Although not current practice, the Appropriations Committees have previously considered CRs in committee and
developed accompanying report language as recently as the 102nd Congress (see, for example, H.Rept. 102-216 and
H.Rept. 102-266). As 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 in this report.
15 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, 127 Stat. 198-437.
16 CRs typically fund activities identified with reference to appropriations measures for a previous fiscal year or un-
enacted appropriations measures for the current fiscal (or budget) year. These referenced measures or laws are the CR’s
“coverage.” For more, see CRS Report R46595, Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Practices.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Overview of Accounts, Funding Allocations, and Other Directives
Overview of Accounts (“Section-by-Section” Summaries)
The basic unit of appropriations bills is the account, which generally includes similar programs,
projects, or other related budgetary items (such as salaries and employee expenses or research and
development activities). Larger agencies typically receive appropriations to multiple accounts,
while smaller agencies may receive all of their funding through a single account.
The bulk of the House and Senate reports accompanying regular appropriations bills provide an
overview of each account in the bill. 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.
Appropriations bills are organized by unnumbered headings, with each heading generally
corresponding to an account. As a result, section-by-section summaries of appropriations bills are
organized by account and also include short descriptions of other provisions included in the bill
that are not part of the appropriations accounts. Such provisions may include “administrative
provisions” specific to particular accounts or agencies, as well as “general provisions” more
broadly applicable to all funds in the bill (or a specified title of the bill).17
Account-by-account summaries provide an explanation of the purpose of each of the bill’s
accounts and describes the programs and activities funded in the bill. These descriptions are
typically 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 context for
Members as they evaluate the measure and any potential floor amendments.
Funding Allocations
In many instances, report language includes a more detailed allocation of funds within each
account than provided in the bill itself. For example, the FY2023 Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations
Committee (H.R. 8295) contained the “Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities, Disabilities
and Health” account within the Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Resources and
Services Administration. The bill provided a lump-sum appropriation of $225,060,000 with no
further allocation of the funds in the statute. The accompanying committee report (H.Rept. 117-
403), shown in Figure 1, recommended that the account’s overall appropriation be divided into
the following specific allocations for certain purposes:

17 Some reports also include policy or program highlights that address multiple accounts or the entire bill prior to the
account-by-account summary. See, for example, H.Rept. 116-447, pp. 2-5, and S.Rept. 115-289, pp. 8-20.
Congressional Research Service

6

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Figure 1. Detailed Funding Allocation
H.Rept. 117-403 accompanying the FY2023 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 8295)

Source: H.Rept. 117-403, p. 83.
Although funding and other directives that appear only in report language do not establish a
statutory requirement, the Appropriations Committees generally expect that the agencies will
adhere to them.18 The following statement from the report accompanying the FY2021 Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies regular appropriations bill reported by the House
Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 116-55, accompanying H.R. 7667) illustrates one way that
the Appropriations Committees might respond to a recalcitrant 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.19
Other Directives
The appropriations committees also use the section-by-section summaries to provide additional
directives to the agencies. These directives are primarily used to explain the committees’ intent
for how the instructed agencies should use a particular appropriation during the upcoming fiscal

18 Although there is no systematic review available about agency compliance with report directives, an 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,” Administrative 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, Government Without Passing Laws: Congress’ Nonstatutory Techniques for Appropriations Control
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), pp. 64-82.
19 H.Rept. 116-455, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service

7

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

year and to make other administrative requests of the agencies. Most committee reports typically
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
those that provide precise and prescriptive instructions to an agency.20 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 guidance that
agencies do not lightly disregard.21
The following examples show how this phraseology has been used in recent appropriations
committee reports. Both examples are taken from the House Appropriations Committee’s report
(H.Rept. 117-392) that accompanied the FY2023 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development,
and Food and Drug Administration regular appropriations bill reported by the committee (H.R.
8239).
In cases where the Appropriations Committees wish to provide a higher degree of flexibility to an
agency, report directives will typically use words such as supports, encourages, urges, or may.
For example, the report language corresponding to the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
“Salaries and Expenses” account included the following directive:
Food Safety and Food Defense Research. – The Committee supports research in food safety
to enhance food defense and security, and encourages ARS to develop new technologies
and capabilities in food safety that will reduce and eliminate threats to the food and
agriculture supply chain.22
The Appropriations Committees often make requests of an agency to take a more specific action.
Such report directives typically 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:
Blood Donor Procedures. - The Committee continues to recognize the need for
scientifically sound, evidence-based policy relative to FDA blood donor recommendations.
The Committee expects the FDA to complete review of the evidence obtained from the
ADVANCE study and encourages FDA to issue updated evidence-based blood donor
recommendations. The Committee directs FDA to report to Congress no later than 180
days after enactment of this Act, including on the status of its ongoing review, on the data

20 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 other House
and Senate committees. The 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.
21 Allen Schick, The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2007),
p. 271.
22 H.Rept. 117-392, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 13 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

it is using or has used to update guidelines, and its outreach and education to blood donation
centers relating to its updated recommendations.23
Although the committees have developed relatively consistent phraseology to convey their
expectations 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 the Appropriations
Committees is that agencies will pay careful attention to all of the directives included in the
Appropriations Committees’ reports.24
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority
Tables in appropriations reports that summarize the appropriations in the bill, the budgetary
effects of other provisions, and certain additional allocations in the report have been in use for at
least the past century.25 These tables assist with the congressional evaluation of the amounts in the
bill, as well as some of the additional funding allocations of those amounts in the report.26 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
 the prior fiscal year,
 the President’s budget request (or “budget estimate”), and
 the committee’s recommendation.
Additionally, the JES will list the final funding levels for the relevant accounts and other activities
agreed to when differences between the House and Senate were resolved on the measure.
The example in Figure 2 is from the Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying the
FY2020 Department of Defense appropriations bill (S.Rept. 116-103, accompanying S. 2724). It
includes all of the categories of information listed above.

23 H.Rept. 117-392, p. 87.
24 For more information on how committee report directives influence agency budget implementation, see CRS Report
RL33151, Committee Controls of Agency Decisions, by Louis Fisher (this report is archived and can be provided to
congressional clients upon request).
25 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 have had various titles, including “Comparative
Statement of New Budget Authority,” “Comparative Statement of Budget Authority,” or “Comparative Statement of
New (Obligational) Budget Authority.”
26 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. For example, see the amounts for “fee accounts” listed for the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection in S.Rept. 113-198, p. 178.
Congressional Research Service

9

Figure 2. Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority
S.Rept. 116-103 accompanying the FY2020 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 2724)

Source: S.Rept. 116-103, p. 299.

CRS-10

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Directives Related to Budget Preparation and Execution
In addition to the directives discussed above, appropriations reports may also contain instructions
related to budget preparation and budget execution. Such directives, which typically relate to
many or all of the accounts in the bill, are usually 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.27 The budget
justifications’ descriptions of budgetary accounts are more detailed than the President’s budget
submission and provide the Appropriations Committees with detailed information about how
agencies plan to use the funds within each account.28 This additional information helps the
Appropriations Committees evaluate the budgetary resources requested for the upcoming fiscal
year.29
The form of an agency’s budget justification and the information contained therein is generally
the result of consultations between the agency and the appropriations committees. 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 well as specific directions for certain
programs or activities.30 In some instances, the agencies funded in the bill may be told how to
address certain informational deficiencies in the future, such as by providing more detail about
grants or staffing changes.31 Report language may also generally direct an agency to coordinate
the content of certain analytical materials with the committee in advance of the submission.32 For
example, the following directives were included in the Senate committee report that accompanied
the FY2020 Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill reported by the Committee (S.Rept. 116-109, accompanying S.
2520):
[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

27 Agency budget justifications are also typically made available on agency websites. For more information on recent
budget justifications, see CRS Report R43470, Selected Agency Budget Justifications for FY2023, by Justin Murray.
28 For more information on agency budget justifications, see CRS Report R47090, Executive Agency Justification of the
President’s Budget: In Brief, by Dominick A. Fiorentino.
29 The 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, Submission, and
Execution of the Budget, July 2016, §§22.6 and 240.4.
30 For example, see H.Rept. 116-100, p. 77.
31 For example, see H.Rept. 116-453, pp. 56, 95.
32 For example, see H.Rept. 116-452, pp. 3-4.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

and comprehensive information on any office or agency restructurings. At a minimum,
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.33
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 accompanying the FY2023 Financial Services and General
Government appropriations bill reported by the committee included the following instructions
related to agency reports (H.Rept. 117-393, accompanying H.R. 8254):
Reports. – Agencies funded by this Act that currently provide separate copies of periodic
reports and correspondence to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees and Subcommittees on Financial Services and General
Government are directed to use a single cover letter jointly addressed to the chairs and
ranking members of the Committees and Subcommittees of both the House and Senate. To
the greatest extent feasible, agencies should include in the cover letter a reference or
hyperlink to facilitate electronic access to the report and provide the documents by
electronic mail delivery. These measures will help reduce costs, conserve paper, expedite
agency processing, and ensure that consistent information is conveyed concurrently to the
majority and minority committee offices of both chambers of Congress.34
“Program, Project, or Activity” Definitions
A “program, project, or activity” (PPA) is an element within a budget account.35 For annually
appropriated accounts, these budget accounts generally correspond to the paragraph headings in
appropriations acts. Such accounts generally 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).36 For example, the
House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 116-446) accompanying the FY2021
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration
appropriations bill reported by the committee (H.R. 7610) shown in Figure 3 identified several
PPAs in the National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA)’s “Integrated Activities”
account:37

33 S.Rept. 116-109, p. 5.
34 H.Rept. 117-393, pp. 8-9.
35 GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, p. 80.
36 OMB Circular A-11, §22.6.
37 These PPAs had also been identified in the NIFA’s congressional budget justification, pp. 21-23, available at
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/19nifa2021notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

12

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Figure 3. Specification of Programs, Projects, and Activities
H.Rept. 116-446 accompanying the FY2021 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and
Drug Administration appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R.
7610)

Source: H.Rept. 116-446, p. 33.
As with other funding allocations in report language, the PPAs identified for each account allow
Congress to provide direction as to the amounts to be expended for particular agency activities.
The PPAs are also significant for “reprogramming,” which is discussed further in the report
section titled “Reprogramming Guidelines.”
The PPAs identified for each account have historically been the basis for the application 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 an across-the-board cancellation of budgetary resources for non-exempt accounts.38
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.39
Sequestration for discretionary spending was in effect to enforce statutory discretionary spending
controls in place from FY1988 to FY2002 and again from FY2012 to FY2021.40
Reprogramming Guidelines
Agencies are generally required to carry out the terms of appropriations acts as enacted, including
the statutory allocation of funds therein. Both report language and the congressional budget
justifications further allocate funds within annually appropriated accounts into PPAs. In general,
when funds are moved between PPAs within the same account, this is referred to as a

38 For more on sequestration, see CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently
Asked Questions, by Megan S. Lynch.
39 BBEDCA, §256(k) (2 U.S.C. §906).
40 Sequestration procedures for discretionary spending under the BBEDCA were first in effect in FY1988. Congress
modified and extended these procedures several times during the 1980s and 1990s, and as a result, sequestration
procedures were in place that could affect the amount of discretionary appropriations available to agencies from
FY1988 to FY2002. For more information on these procedures, see CRS Report R41901, Statutory Budget Controls in
Effect Between 1985 and 2002, by Megan S. Lynch. More recently, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25)
further amended sequestration procedures under the BBEDCA, establishing enforceable discretionary spending limits
for FY2012-FY2021. These statutory limits were modified several times by subsequent legislation and expired after
FY2021. For more on the Budget Control Act, see CRS Report R44874, The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked
Questions, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service

13

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

“reprogramming” of funds.41 Agencies are generally permitted to reprogram funds, subject to
restrictions in law. This is in contrast to a “transfer”—moving funds between accounts—which
requires statutory authority.
The level of statutory detail regarding the purposes and amounts for funds in annual
appropriations acts has changed considerably over time. 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 I, the Appropriations Committees
determined that certain agencies required more budgetary flexibility to respond to pressing
demands of the war.42 Perhaps as a consequence of the frequent use of lump-sum appropriations,
the Appropriations Committees began to rely more extensively on detailed funding allocations
generally being provided through non-statutory means such as report language.43 As Congress
provided accounts with larger lump-sum appropriations rather than more numerous and detailed
line-item appropriations, an informal understanding was reached that agencies would consult with
the Appropriations Committees on matters related to reprogramming.
In current practice, statutory restrictions on reprogramming are usually 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)44 prohibits reprogramming
that
 augments or changes existing PPAs;
 relocates an existing office or employees;
 reduces by 10% funding for any existing PPA, or numbers of personnel by 10%
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.
Section 7015(b) of P.L. 116-260 further provided that such reprogramming is allowable if the
Appropriations Committees are notified 15 days in advance of an obligation. Once appropriations
are enacted for a fiscal year, agencies typically 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.45
In addition to the requirements in appropriations acts, report language often provides guidance on
the specific reprogramming procedures that agencies are to follow. Such guidance could include:

41 For more on reprogramming, see CRS Report R43098, Transfer and Reprogramming of Appropriations: An
Overview of Authorities, Limitations, and Procedures, by Michelle D. Christensen.
42 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.
43 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).
44 P.L. 116-260, Division K, Title VII, §7015(b).
45 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.
Congressional Research Service

14

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

 the level of detail that triggers notification requirements or special procedures for
certain accounts,46
 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 all such requests during the fiscal year.47
For example, the House Appropriations Committee’s report (H.Rept. 116-444) that accompanied
the FY2021 State-Foreign Operations bill reported by the committee (H.R. 7608) included the
following instructions that supplemented the statutory guidance discussed above:
The Committee recommendation grants limited reprogramming authorities to ensure that
funds are devoted to the highest priorities, particularly due to changes in circumstances of
countries facing unrest, terrorism, and violence. The Committee notes that reprogramming
notifications must be submitted subject to the regular notification procedures of the
Committees on Appropriations. For the purposes of this Act and report, “regular
notification procedures” means notification must be provided at least 15 days in advance
of obligation of funds unless otherwise specified. The Committee continues to permit the
waiver of such notification procedures, pursuant to section 7015(e) of this Act, only if
failure to do so would pose a substantial risk to human health or welfare. The Committee
expects the use of this authority to be extremely rare and directs the Secretary of State and
the USAID Administrator to use this authority judiciously. Additional notification
requirements are added in fiscal year 2021 to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight
of funds.48
Additional guidance in report language may be provided annually or on a standing basis.
Comparison with the Budget Resolution
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the Budget Act) provides for the adoption of a concurrent
resolution on the budget (commonly referred to as a “budget resolution”) to serve as an
agreement between the House and Senate on a fiscal framework for the upcoming fiscal year.49
As a means of enforcing the top-line spending levels adopted in the budget resolution, the Budget
Act requires that enforceable allocations be made to committees with jurisdiction over spending
legislation.50 Through this process, 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)” allocation.51 Each Appropriations Committee is required to further divide this
allocation among its 12 subcommittees, which are referred to as “302(b)” suballocations.52 The
302(b) suballocation for a subcommittee limits the level of budget authority available for the
agencies, projects, and activities within its jurisdiction, effectively acting as a procedural cap on
the amount of budget authority in each of the 12 regular appropriations bills. The 302(a)

46 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-452, pp. 2-3; and H.Rept. 116-445, pp. 10-11.
47 See, for example, H.Rept. 116-101, pp. 5-6; and H.Rept. 116-122, pp. 5-7.
48 H.Rept. 116-444, p. 5.
49 The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344; 88 Stat. 297; 2 U.S.C. §§601-688).
50 For more, see CRS Report R47388, Enforceable Spending Allocations in the Congressional Budget Process: 302(a)s
and 302(b)s, by Drew C. Aherne.
51 Congressional Budget Act, §302(a) (2 U.S.C. §633).
52 Congressional Budget Act, §302(b) (2 U.S.C. §633).
Congressional Research Service

15

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

allocation and 302(b) suballocations can be enforced through Budget Act points of order raised
during floor consideration of appropriations bills.53
The Budget Act was intended to provide a framework whereby Congress could evaluate the
future effects of past budgetary decisions, as well 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.54 In addition to these general
requirements, the Budget Act mandates that committee reports accompanying regular and
supplemental appropriations measures (but not CRs) include a statement comparing the funding
provided in the measure to the applicable 302(b) suballocation.55 This statement must also be
included in a conference report, if available in a timely manner, after consultation with the
Congressional Budget Office.56
The information required by the Budget Act is usually provided in a separate section of House
and Senate appropriations reports, as illustrated in Figure 4 from the report (H.Rept. 117-392)
accompanying the FY2023 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R.
8239).

53 Primarily, these allocations are enforced through points of order under the Congressional Budget Act, Sections 302(f)
and 311. For more information, see CRS Report R47413, Points of Order in the Congressional Budget Process, by
James V. Saturno and Megan S. Lynch.
54 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.
Congressional Budget Act, §308(a)(1)(B) [2 U.S.C. §639].
55 Congressional Budget Act, §308(a)(1)(A) (2 U.S.C. §639).
56 The House reiterated this Budget Act requirement in Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2).
Congressional Research Service

16

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Figure 4. Comparison with the Budget Resolution
H.Rept. 117-392 accompanying the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2023, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R.
8239)

Source: H.Rept. 117-392, p. 156.
Language Changing Existing Law
Both the House and 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 should be funded.
As a result, Congress has created distinct processes for authorizing—which establishes and
controls government entities, activities, or programs in law—and appropriating—which provides
funding for those entities, activities, and programs.
One aspect of Congress separating the authorizing and appropriating functions is that the House
and Senate have rules that generally prohibit legislative provisions from being included in
appropriations measures. House Rule XXI, clause 2, generally prohibits including legislative
provisions in general appropriations bills and amendments thereto.57 Senate Rule XVI, paragraph
2, prohibits amendments to general appropriations measures that propose legislative language not
contained in existing law, except under certain circumstances.58

57 The House does allow certain limited exceptions. For example, see CRS Report R44736, The Holman Rule (House
Rule XXI, Clause 2(b)), by James V. Saturno. It should also be noted that the House defines general appropriations
bills as the annual appropriations acts (or any combination thereof) and any supplemental appropriations acts that cover
more than one agency. CRs are not considered to be general appropriations bills. See Johnson, Sullivan, and Wickham,
House Practice, ch. 4, §3.
58 For example, if the House includes legislative language in an appropriations bill, Senate precedent allows for any
germane modification. The Senate defines general appropriations bills as 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
Congressional Research Service

17

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

This prohibition, however, is distinct from “limitation” provisions, which restrict either the
purpose, amount, or availability of appropriated funds without changing existing or creating new
law. Because they affect only how an agency may use appropriated funds, limitation provisions
are distinct from legislative provisions and are allowed under House and Senate rules. These
provisions can limit the ability of agencies to spend funds for specified purposes.59
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.60 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 Appropriations Committee reports include “a concise statement
describing the effect of any provision of the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly changes
the application of existing law.”61 This requirement, which encompasses legislative language, is
currently codified in House Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(1)(A).62 Figure 5 shows an excerpt of such a
list provided in the report (H.Rept. 117-402) accompanying the FY2023 Departments of
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 8294).

Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 101-28 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 159.
59 For more information, see CRS Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of
Procedural Issues, by James V. Saturno.
60 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.
61 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.
62 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

18

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Figure 5. Changes in the Application of Existing Law
H.Rept. 117-402 accompanying the FY2023 Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 8294)

Source: H.Rept. 117-402, p. 476.
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
One way in which the rules of the House and Senate distinguish between authorizations and
appropriations is to prohibit appropriations for expenditures not previously authorized by law.
Authorizing legislation may include language authorizing subsequent appropriations explicitly
(i.e., “there is hereby authorized to be appropriated”), or such authority may be implied by the
statutory authority that creates and governs the entity.63 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.

63 For more on the relationship between authorizations and appropriations, see CRS Report R46497, Authorizations and
the Appropriations Process, by James V. Saturno.
Congressional Research Service

19

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

Congressional concerns about providing appropriations not authorized by law are long-standing.64
House Rule XXI, clause 2, prohibits appropriations not previously authorized by law in general
appropriations measures and amendments thereto except to continue appropriations for public
works and objects already in progress. 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 that would increase unauthorized funding already in the bill or add a new
item of appropriation that is not authorized.65
Despite these rules, appropriations not authorized by law have been provided for certain
purposes. 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. In the Senate, these requirements were initially adopted in 1970 and are
currently in Senate Rule XVI, paragraph 7.66 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 bill and not an amendment (or amendments) to a House-passed
appropriations bill, the committee’s report usually includes a list of unauthorized appropriations
included in the bill. Figure 6 shows an excerpt of this Senate list provided in the report (S.Rept.
116-127) accompanying the FY2020 Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill reported by the committee (S. 2584).

64 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, by Jessica Tollestrup.
65 For more information, see CRS Report R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues,
coordinated by Edward C. Liu.
66 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

20

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Figure 6. Senate List of Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
S.Rept. 116-127 accompanying the FY2020 Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 2584)

Source: S.Rept. 116-127, p. 181.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 26 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

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 bills include
a separate list of appropriations not currently authorized by law.67 At the beginning of the 107th
Congress, this rule was expanded to require more detailed information, including:68
 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 bill.
This requirement is currently codified in House Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(1)(B). A recent example of
the House Appropriations Committee’s list of Appropriations Not Authorized by Law is provided
in the report accompanying the FY2023 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill
reported by the committee (H.Rept. 117-395, accompanying H.R. 8256), which is excerpted in
Figure 7.

67 H.Res. 6, 104th Cong. The requirements in this rule do not apply to classified intelligence or national security PPAs.
68 H.Res. 5, 107th Cong.
Congressional Research Service

22

Figure 7. House List of Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
H.Rept. 117-395 accompanying the FY2023 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations
Committee (H.R. 8256)

Source: H.Rept. 117-395, p. 199.

CRS-23

link to page 28 Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

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 bill.69
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 (usually limited 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.70 Although the House Appropriations Committee does not generally have jurisdiction over
legislative language,71 the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 added jurisdiction over
transfers and rescissions of funds previously provided in appropriations acts. This expansion was
intended to provide more flexibility to the committee.72 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 bills and
joint resolutions have separate headings for “Rescissions” and “Transfers of Unexpended
Balances.”73 That rule also requires that the committee reports accompanying those bills have a
separate section that lists all such proposed rescissions and transfers. These requirements are
currently codified in House Rule XIII, clause 3(f)(2).
For example, the following lists in Figure 8 were included in the report (H.Rept. 117-400)
accompanying the FY2023 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 8262):

69 For more on the budgetary scorekeeping of rescissions, see scorekeeping rule 8 in H.Rept. 105-217.
70 Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, H.Doc. 115-177, 115th Cong., 2nd sess.,
compiled by Thomas J. Wickham, Parliamentarian (Washington: GPO, 2019), §1063, pp. 905-906.
71 House Rule X, clause 1(b).
72 H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong. The rationale for this change is discussed more extensively in H.Rept. 93-916, part II, pp. 29-
30.
73 H.Res. 988, 93rd Cong., H.Rept. 93-916, part II, pp. 29-30.
Congressional Research Service

24

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

Figure 8. Rescissions and Transfers
H.Rept. 117-400 accompanying the FY2023 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 8262)

Source: H.Rept. 117-400, p. 190.
In the Senate, transfers and rescissions are also considered to be legislative language,74 but only
rescissions are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Committee.75 However, there is no
requirement that such provisions be separately identified in the committee report accompanying
an appropriations measure.
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending and Community
Project Funding (“Earmarks”)
The House and Senate have each adopted rules that require the disclosure of information related
to items commonly referred to as “earmarks,” currently known as “congressionally directed
spending” in the Senate and “community project funding” in the House. Under both chambers’

74 For more on rescissions, see Riddick’s Senate Procedure, p. 176.
75 Senate Rule XXV, paragraph 1(b).
Congressional Research Service

25

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

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.76
The information about these spending items is included in committee reports accompanying
appropriations measures reported by both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as
well as explanatory text accompanying measures not reported by the appropriations committees.77
With regard to appropriations measures reported from the appropriations committees, the practice
of the committees is to include a table of congressional earmarks contained in such measures (and
the measure’s accompanying report) in the committee reports. House Rule XXI, clause 9, and
Senate Rule XLIV also require the disclosure of earmarks contained in a conference report (or a
JES), as well as additional types of measures and amendments.78
When the accompanying bill or report contains earmarks, such tables identify the following
information about each 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.79
The following table in Figure 9 from the report (H.Rept. 117-79) accompanying the FY2022
Financial Services and General Government regular appropriations bill (H.R. 4345), as reported
by the House Appropriations Committee, provides an example of how committee reports are used
to disclose associated earmarks:

76 The 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).
77 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.
78 For more information, see CRS Report RS22866, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the House: Member and Committee
Requirements, by Megan S. Lynch; and CRS Report RS22867, Earmark Disclosure Rules in the Senate: Member and
Committee Requirements, by Megan S. Lynch.
79 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.
The 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
Development 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.
Congressional Research Service

26

Figure 9. Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending
H.Rept. 117-79 accompanying the FY2022 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations
Committee (H.R. 4345)

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

CRS-27

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

When the bill or report contains no earmarks, committee reports from the House Appropriations
Committee accompanying regular appropriations bills (as well as any JES) often include a
statement indicating that neither the appropriations bill nor its accompanying committee report
contains earmarks.80 The report (H.Rept. 117-80) accompanying the FY2022 Legislative Branch
regular appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 4346)
provides an example of such a statement.
Figure 10. Statement Declaring No Earmarks or Congressionally Directed Spending
Items Included in Bill or Accompanying Report
H.Rept. 117-80 accompanying the FY2022 Legislative Branch regular appropriations bill, as reported by
the House Appropriations Committee (H.R. 4346)

Source: H.Rept. 117-80, p. 46.

Author Information

Drew C. Aherne

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Acknowledgments
This report is an updated edition of CRS Report R44124, Appropriations Report Language:
Overview of Development, Components, and Issues for Congress. The current author thanks
Jessica Tollestrup for her generous assistance and guidance in producing this updated edition.

80 Reports from the Senate Appropriations Committee have typically not included such statements.
Congressional Research Service

28

Appropriations Report Language: Overview of Development and Components

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 not 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 11 · UPDATED
29

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 22, 2023

HTML · PDF

6% changed

Sep. 14, 2021

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Aug. 16, 2021

HTML · PDF

89% changed