Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Congress controls all federal spending through a complex system known as “the power of the purse.” This crucial authority involves two main types of congressional committees: Authorization Committees and Appropriations Committees.
Understanding how these committees work together (or sometimes don’t) reveals how your tax dollars become government programs and services. The division between these committees isn’t merely bureaucratic detail—it shapes everything from national defense to healthcare, from environmental protection to infrastructure development.
Authorization Committees: The Blueprint Makers
Authorization Committees create the legal framework for federal agencies, programs, and activities. Think of them as architects who design what government can do.
An authorization provides the legal permission for government action, establishing what a program is meant to accomplish and how it should operate.
These committees answer the fundamental questions:
- What will a program do?
- Why is it needed?
- How will it function?
For example, the House Committee on Armed Services might create a bill authorizing a new cybersecurity initiative within the Department of Defense, outlining its mission and operational guidelines.
What They Can and Can’t Do
Authorization Committees can draft legislation that permits the government to spend money on specific programs. Their bills often suggest funding levels for these programs.
However, they face a crucial limitation: authorizing bills alone don’t provide actual funding. Getting authorization is like receiving permission to build a house – you still need money to begin construction.
This distinction is fundamental to congressional operations but often misunderstood by the public. When a lawmaker announces a new program authorization, this doesn’t guarantee it will receive funding. The program exists on paper but may remain dormant without appropriations.
How Long Authorizations Last
Authorizations vary significantly in duration:
- Some programs receive permanent authorizations, allowing them to operate indefinitely until Congress decides otherwise.
- Many authorizations are time-limited, typically for one, two, or five years, requiring periodic “reauthorization” to continue.
Time-limited authorizations create scheduled opportunities for review. When a program comes up for reauthorization, committees examine its effectiveness and make necessary adjustments.
This system of time-limited authorizations isn’t just procedural minutiae—it’s an important oversight mechanism. Programs with annual authorizations face more incremental changes, while multiyear authorizations often undergo more substantial policy adjustments when renewed. Programs with permanent authorizations might escape regular scrutiny unless specific concerns arise.
Examples of Authorization Committees
Most standing committees in Congress have authorizing responsibilities over specific areas:
- House Committee on Armed Services: Oversees defense policy, military operations, Department of Defense organization, and counter-drug programs.
- Senate Committee on Armed Services: Handles similar defense matters, including weapons systems, national security aspects of nuclear energy, and military benefits.
- House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Has one of the broadest jurisdictions, covering healthcare, environmental protection, energy policy, telecommunications, consumer protection, and food safety.
- Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Oversees legislation related to transportation, science, technology, and space exploration.
- House Committee on Ways and Means: The chief tax-writing committee, handling taxation, tariffs, revenue measures, and major programs like Social Security and Medicare.
- Senate Committee on Finance: Mirrors many Ways and Means responsibilities, including taxation, trade, U.S. debt, and health programs under the Social Security Act.
- Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP): Deals with education, labor standards, public health, and occupational safety.
Each of these committees shapes policy in their respective domains, creating the framework that governs how federal agencies operate. Their work defines what government can do, even before the question of funding arises.
Appropriations Committees: The Money Managers
Appropriations Committees handle the crucial next step: passing legislation that provides actual budget authority for government agencies to spend Treasury funds.
These committees determine how much money each authorized program receives, deciding which initiatives can operate and to what extent. If Authorization Committees are architects, Appropriations Committees are the bankers who approve and release construction funds.
Constitutional Authority
The power of Appropriations Committees stems directly from the Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
This “Appropriations Clause” gives these committees their extensive responsibilities for federal spending. The constitutional roots of appropriations power highlight its fundamental importance in American governance—no agency, department, or program can spend money without congressional approval through appropriations.
Broad Control Over Discretionary Spending
Appropriations Committees have remarkably broad jurisdiction, as they oversee funding for most federal government functions. They control all discretionary spending – the portion of the federal budget determined annually through appropriations.
To manage this vast responsibility, both House and Senate Appropriations Committees divide their work among 12 identical subcommittees. Each drafts one of the 12 regular appropriations bills funding specific government sectors.
These subcommittees include Defense; Labor, Health and Human Services, Education; Agriculture and FDA; and Homeland Security. The Defense Subcommittee alone typically manages about half the entire discretionary budget.
The official websites for the House Committee on Appropriations and Senate Committee on Appropriations provide detailed information on their activities.
This structure gives appropriations members tremendous influence over national priorities. Their decisions determine whether authorized programs receive full funding, partial funding, or no funding at all. For this reason, positions on these committees are highly coveted by lawmakers seeking to shape federal spending and direct resources to their constituencies.
How the Two Committees Work Together (Ideally)
The federal government’s process for discretionary spending follows a two-step sequence:
- Authorization Committees create the legal framework for a program
- Appropriations Committees decide on funding levels
For example, the Armed Services Committee might authorize the Navy to establish a new program, then the Appropriations Committee would determine how much funding to allocate.
This separation of responsibilities creates a system of checks and balances within Congress itself. It ensures that subject matter experts establish program parameters while financial specialists determine budget allocations within broader fiscal constraints.
The Reasons Behind This Division
This separation isn’t explicitly required by the Constitution. Instead, it evolved through congressional rules established under each chamber’s authority to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
The system dates back to the 1830s, when concerns arose about delays in passing necessary funding bills. Rules were adopted to separate policy questions (handled by subject-matter experts on authorizing committees) from funding decisions (managed by appropriations committees with broader fiscal perspective).
Historical records show that delays occurred because appropriations bills were becoming bogged down with “debatable matters of another character, new laws which created long debates.” The separation aimed to streamline the funding process and ensure government operations weren’t unduly delayed by policy disagreements.
When Things Go According to Plan
In an ideal scenario, authorizing committees conduct timely reviews and pass authorization bills with clear policy direction and suggested funding levels. Appropriations Committees then provide necessary funding through appropriations acts, allowing programs to operate as intended.
When this process works smoothly, it combines specialized policy expertise with fiscal discipline. Authorizing committees, with their subject-matter focus, design effective programs. Appropriations committees, with their government-wide perspective, allocate resources based on overall priorities and available funds.
When Things Go Off Track
Reality often deviates from this ideal process:
- Federal programs frequently operate with expired authorizations
- Authorized programs may receive no funding or less than recommended
- The 12 regular appropriations bills face delays, requiring temporary funding measures
- Policy provisions sometimes appear in appropriations bills, blurring committee boundaries
These deviations aren’t rare exceptions—they’ve become common practice in modern congressional operations. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in Fiscal Year 2022, Congress appropriated over $450 billion for programs and activities with expired authorizations.
While the two-step process is the established norm, congressional rules allow for flexibility. Congress can fund programs with lapsed authorizations; if such funding is enacted, it effectively “carries its own authorization.” Similarly, Congress can extend a program by providing new appropriations, even without current authorization.
This flexibility creates tension. Authorizing committees may feel undermined if appropriators don’t fund their programs adequately. Conversely, appropriators may consider some authorizations unrealistic or inconsistent with fiscal priorities.
The result is an ongoing push-pull between policy goals and budget realities, between specialized program knowledge and broader fiscal constraints.
Key Differences: Authorization vs. Appropriation
This table highlights the distinct roles of these committee types:
| Feature | Authorization Committees | Appropriations Committees |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Function | Policy & Program Design: Establish, continue, or modify federal agencies and programs. | Funding Allocation: Provide actual budget authority for government agencies and programs. |
| Key Question Answered | What can the government do? What are the rules and goals? | How much money does the government get to do it? |
| Output/End Product | Authorizing Laws/Statutes (e.g., National Defense Authorization Act). | Appropriations Acts/Spending Bills (e.g., Defense Appropriations Act). |
| Source of Power (Specific) | General legislative powers derived from the Constitution; committee subject-matter jurisdiction. | U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the “Appropriations Clause”). |
| Duration of Measures | Can be permanent, multi-year (e.g., 2-5 years), or annual; require reauthorization if time-limited. | Typically annual, providing funding for one fiscal year. |
| Control Over Spending | Recommend or authorize spending levels (often as ceilings or “such sums as necessary”). | Determine actual discretionary spending levels allocated from the Treasury. |
| Typical Committee Examples | Armed Services, Energy & Commerce, Ways & Means, Foreign Relations, Agriculture. | House Committee on Appropriations, Senate Committee on Appropriations (and their 12 subcommittees). |
The Annual Budget Cycle
The federal budget process follows a general timeline, though deviations and delays frequently occur.
President’s Budget Request
The cycle begins with the President submitting a comprehensive budget proposal to Congress. By law, this request is due on or before the first Monday in February for the upcoming fiscal year (starting October 1).
The President’s budget recommends spending levels for federal agencies and programs in the form of budget authority—legal permission to incur financial obligations. This is only a request; Congress ultimately decides spending levels.
The presidential budget represents the administration’s policy priorities and fiscal vision. It reflects campaign promises, political realities, and responses to current national challenges. While Congress isn’t bound by these recommendations, the President’s budget influences subsequent congressional debate, particularly when the same party controls both branches.
Congress’s Budget Framework
After receiving the President’s budget, the House and Senate Budget Committees draft a concurrent budget resolution. This resolution serves as Congress’s fiscal blueprint, establishing overall spending limits for at least the next five fiscal years.
A critical function of the budget resolution is setting the 302(a) allocation for the Appropriations Committees. This figure represents the total discretionary spending available to appropriators for the upcoming year.
The budget resolution is a concurrent resolution—an agreement between the House and Senate that isn’t sent to the President and lacks the force of law. Its purpose is providing an internal framework for Congress. The target completion date is April 15, but this deadline is often missed.
The budget resolution involves fundamental decisions about national priorities and fiscal policy, making it a frequent point of partisan contention. When Congress fails to agree on a budget resolution, or significantly delays it, the Appropriations Committees lack official spending caps, creating uncertainty throughout the appropriations process.
Appropriations Committees at Work
Once they receive their 302(a) allocations, Appropriations Committees subdivide this total among their 12 subcommittees (known as 302(b) suballocations). These effectively set spending caps for each of the 12 regular appropriations bills.
Each subcommittee then:
- Holds hearings to review agency budget justifications
- Hears testimony from Members of Congress and public stakeholders
- Drafts its appropriations bill
- Conducts “markup” sessions where members debate and amend the bill
- Votes on the final subcommittee version
Bills approved by subcommittees move to the full Appropriations Committee for another round of markup, amendments, and voting.
This process combines detailed scrutiny with political negotiation. Agency officials must justify their funding requests, lawmakers advocate for priorities important to their constituents, and interest groups push for increased funding for their preferred programs. The resulting bills reflect both policy needs and political compromises.
House and Senate Floor Consideration
Appropriations bills approved by the full committee are reported to the chamber floor for consideration by all members.
In the House, debate procedures are usually governed by a “special rule” from the Rules Committee. In the Senate, the process may be structured by unanimous consent agreements setting time limits and amendment procedures.
During floor debate, members can offer amendments, and points of order can be raised against provisions violating chamber rules.
Floor consideration provides opportunities for lawmakers not serving on appropriations committees to influence spending decisions. Amendments may increase or decrease funding for specific programs, add policy riders, or redirect priorities. The amendment process often highlights partisan differences in spending priorities and policy approaches.
Conference Committees
The House and Senate typically pass different versions of each appropriations bill. To resolve these differences, a conference committee forms with members from both chambers’ relevant appropriations subcommittees.
These conferees negotiate a compromise between the two versions. The resulting conference report cannot be amended further by either chamber—it must be approved or rejected as is.
Conference committees represent a critical negotiation phase where differences must be reconciled. House and Senate conferees may have competing priorities, different spending levels, and conflicting policy riders to resolve. The final conference report usually contains compromises satisfying neither chamber perfectly but acceptable enough to pass both.
Presidential Action
Once identical appropriations bills pass both chambers, they’re presented to the President, who has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to act by:
- Signing the bill, making it law
- Vetoing the bill and returning it to Congress with objections
- Taking no action, which allows the bill to become law after 10 days if Congress remains in session
- If Congress adjourns during the 10-day period and the President doesn’t sign, it’s a “pocket veto” and the bill doesn’t become law
Presidential cooperation is crucial for completing the appropriations process. When the President and congressional majority belong to different parties, the risk of veto threats and funding standoffs increases. Even with unified government, presidents may object to specific provisions or funding levels they consider inconsistent with their priorities.
Types of Spending and Funding Measures
The federal budget includes several categories of spending and various types of legislation to fund government operations.
Discretionary vs. Mandatory Spending
Discretionary Spending:
- Determined annually through 12 regular appropriations bills
- Called “discretionary” because Congress has choices each year about allocations
- Includes funding for defense, education, environmental protection, research, foreign aid, and federal agency operations
- Controlled by House and Senate Appropriations Committees
- Comprised about 23% of total federal spending in FY2023
- Generally declining as a percentage of GDP over recent decades
Mandatory Spending:
- Determined by existing laws rather than annual appropriations
- Based on eligibility criteria, benefit formulas, or pre-set legal obligations
- Includes major entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), unemployment benefits, and federal employee retirement
- Controlled primarily by legislative (authorizing) committees like Ways and Means and Finance
- Along with interest on the national debt, accounted for approximately 77% of federal spending in FY2023
- The largest component of the federal budget
As mandatory spending consumes a larger share of federal resources, it can “squeeze” available funding for discretionary programs. This dynamic means efforts to control federal spending often disproportionately target discretionary programs, intensifying political battles over these funds.
The growth of mandatory spending has profound implications for fiscal policy. Because these programs operate on auto-pilot based on eligibility criteria rather than annual funding decisions, they’re less responsive to short-term budget constraints. Changing mandatory spending typically requires modifying the underlying program structure or eligibility rules—politically difficult actions that may affect vulnerable populations.
Regular Appropriations Bills
These 12 annual spending bills provide most funding for federal government operations for each fiscal year (October 1 to September 30). Each bill is drafted and managed by one of the 12 corresponding subcommittees within the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
The 12 regular appropriations bills are:
- Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration
- Commerce, Justice, Science
- Defense
- Energy and Water Development
- Financial Services and General Government
- Homeland Security
- Interior, Environment
- Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
- Legislative Branch
- Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
- State, Foreign Operations
- Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Ideally, Congress passes all 12 bills, and the President signs them into law, before the October 1 deadline. Sometimes, several bills may be bundled into a single package called an “omnibus appropriations measure.”
These regular appropriations bills contain detailed funding decisions for thousands of federal programs, projects, and activities. They often include specific directives about how agencies should allocate funds, restrictions on certain activities, and various policy provisions related to the funded programs.
Continuing Resolutions (CRs)
When Congress fails to enact some or all regular appropriations bills by October 1, it typically passes a Continuing Resolution to prevent a government shutdown.
A CR is a temporary funding measure allowing federal agencies to continue operating at previous fiscal year levels, often with restrictions on starting new projects. CRs have become common; Congress enacted at least one CR in all but three of the 47 fiscal years leading up to September 2024.
CRs can last for days, weeks, or even cover an entire fiscal year (“full-year CR”). Their frequent use creates significant operational challenges for federal agencies.
The chronic reliance on CRs represents a breakdown in the normal appropriations process. Rather than making thoughtful funding decisions based on current needs and priorities, CRs essentially put government on autopilot, continuing previous funding patterns regardless of changing circumstances or new priorities.
Supplemental Appropriations
Supplemental appropriations provide additional funding outside the regular annual process for urgent or unforeseen needs during the fiscal year.
These typically address situations like:
- Natural disaster relief after hurricanes, floods, or wildfires
- Military operations or national security emergencies
- Public health crises like pandemic response
- Border security or immigration emergencies
- Other unexpected events requiring immediate federal resources
Supplemental appropriations allow flexibility to address emerging needs without disrupting regular appropriations. However, they sometimes become vehicles for attaching unrelated spending or policy provisions that might not pass as standalone legislation. During periods of high partisan tension, even emergency supplemental funding can become entangled in broader political disputes, delaying necessary resources for disaster victims or urgent national priorities.
When the Process Breaks Down
The authorization-appropriation process routinely encounters challenges, leading to various workarounds and complications.
Unauthorized Appropriations
An “unauthorized appropriation” occurs when Congress allocates money for a program whose legal authorization has expired, or provides more funding than specified in the authorizing law.
Both chambers have rules against this practice. House Rule XXI generally prohibits appropriations for unauthorized expenditures in general appropriations bills. Senate Rule XVI is more limited, primarily restricting amendments offered by individual Senators.
These rules can be enforced through “points of order” raised on the chamber floor, but they can also be waived—by a special rule from the House Rules Committee or by unanimous consent in either chamber.
If an appropriations bill containing unauthorized appropriations becomes law, the appropriation generally has full legal effect. The act of appropriating the funds is considered to “carry its own authorization.”
The Congressional Budget Office reports annually to Congress on programs operating with unauthorized appropriations and those with expiring authorizations. These reports consistently show a substantial portion of federal programs operating without current authorizations, demonstrating how common this deviation from “regular order” has become.
The prevalence of unauthorized appropriations reflects both pragmatic governance needs and power dynamics between committees. While procedural purists might insist on current authorizations for all funded programs, Congress often prioritizes program continuity over procedural regularity, especially when reauthorization bills face political obstacles.
Unfunded or Underfunded Authorizations
The reverse situation also occurs: programs may be legally authorized, but Appropriations Committees provide less funding than recommended, or none at all. Appropriations Committees aren’t legally bound to fund programs at authorized levels, nor required to fund every authorized program.
When authorized programs are unfunded or significantly underfunded, they may operate at reduced capacity, struggle to meet objectives, or cease functioning. This can create “unfunded mandates,” where requirements are imposed without sufficient resources.
A prominent example is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), where federal contributions consistently fall short of intended levels, leaving states and school districts to cover remaining costs. Similarly, state and local governments report significant burdens from federal environmental and social program mandates where funding hasn’t kept pace.
This gap between authorization and appropriation highlights the tension between policy ambitions and fiscal constraints. Authorization committees, focused on specific policy domains, may design programs with idealized funding levels. Appropriations committees, balancing competing priorities across government, often allocate less than requested. This disconnect can frustrate program administrators and intended beneficiaries, who see authorized programs operating at diminished capacity due to funding shortfalls.
Policy Riders in Spending Bills
Another deviation is including new legislative language—policy changes, directives, or alterations to existing law—within appropriations bills. Both House Rule XXI and Senate Rule XVI generally prohibit this practice, as it blurs committee roles. Such provisions are often called “legislative riders.”
Despite the rules, legislative provisions sometimes appear in appropriations bills. This can be a tactic to enact policy changes that might struggle to pass as standalone bills, or to attach controversial provisions to “must-pass” spending legislation.
Like unauthorized appropriations, these provisions can be challenged by points of order but allowed through waivers. If enacted into law, they generally have full legal effect.
Policy riders in appropriations bills represent a significant complication in the two-step process. When appropriators include substantive policy changes in spending bills, they effectively bypass authorizing committees’ jurisdiction and expertise. This practice can lead to hastily crafted policies without thorough committee review. However, it also reflects the reality that appropriations bills often represent the most viable legislative vehicles in polarized political environments where few standalone policy bills can overcome procedural hurdles.
Problems with Continuing Resolutions
The frequent use of Continuing Resolutions creates significant challenges:
- Uncertainty: CRs make it difficult for agencies to plan long-term, commit to contracts, or hire personnel. Federal managers report constant confusion about available resources and hesitancy to initiate important activities due to funding uncertainty.
- Restrictions on new initiatives: CRs often prohibit starting new programs or projects, even high-priority ones, because they typically fund activities at previous year’s levels. This limits government’s ability to address emerging needs or implement new congressional priorities.
- Inefficient spending: The stop-start nature of CR funding can lead to wasteful practices. Agencies might rush to spend funds if full-year appropriations arrive late, or make drastic cuts if final funding is lower than CR levels. The Government Accountability Office found that operating under CRs results in inefficiencies like repetitive contracting actions and delayed hiring.
- Program impacts: Under a full-year CR, the Department of Defense might be unable to expand kindergarten for service members’ children, the Army might face recruiting bonus constraints, and nutrition programs like WIC might struggle with rising costs, potentially turning away eligible families.
The chronic use of CRs often signals broader political disagreements about policy priorities and spending levels. While they prevent government shutdowns, their prolonged use creates operational inefficiencies and negative impacts across federal agencies.
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, CRs can sometimes provide an administration with more flexibility to shift funding within accounts if the CR lacks the explicit program-level directives typically found in regular appropriations bills. This can alter the balance of power between branches, potentially allowing executive agencies to exercise more discretion over spending priorities than Congress intended.
The Role of Committee Staff
Behind the public work of congressional committees are professional staff members who provide crucial expertise and continuity. These staff play essential roles in both authorization and appropriation processes.
Authorization Committee Staff
Professional staff on authorizing committees typically specialize in specific policy areas within the committee’s jurisdiction. These experts:
- Conduct policy research and analysis
- Draft legislative language
- Prepare members for hearings and markups
- Liaise with federal agencies, stakeholders, and interest groups
- Negotiate with other committees and congressional offices
Many authorization committee staff have deep subject-matter expertise in their areas of focus, often with advanced degrees or prior experience in relevant fields. Their specialized knowledge supports committee members in developing effective program designs and oversight strategies.
Appropriations Committee Staff
Appropriations committee staff focus on budgetary matters and spending allocations. Their responsibilities include:
- Analyzing agency budget requests
- Reviewing program performance and spending patterns
- Drafting appropriations bills and accompanying reports
- Tracking spending across government
- Identifying potential savings or funding needs
Appropriations staff must maintain broader awareness across multiple programs and agencies, understanding both technical budget details and political priorities. Their expertise lies in fiscal matters rather than program-specific policies.
How to Track Congressional Spending Decisions
A wealth of information about congressional activities is publicly available:
Official Congressional Resources
- Congress.gov: The official website for U.S. federal legislative information. Users can find bill text, summaries, and status; committee reports; hearing schedules; witness testimony; and the Congressional Record. The site provides sections for tracking appropriations and budget information and allows email alerts for specific bills, committees, or topics.
- House Appropriations Committee: Offers information on hearing schedules, committee markups, press releases, enacted legislation, subcommittee activities, and guidance on member funding requests.
- Senate Appropriations Committee: Provides news releases, hearing and markup information, legislation details, and resources related to appropriations requests and congressionally directed spending.
- Authorizing Committee Websites: Each committee maintains its own site with press releases, hearing videos, and details on legislation. Examples include the House Committee on Armed Services, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Senate Committee on Finance.
Independent Budget Resources
Several non-governmental organizations provide analysis and tracking of federal budget matters:
- Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: Offers analysis of budget proposals, appropriations legislation, and fiscal policy issues.
- Bipartisan Policy Center: Provides reports on budget process reform, appropriations timelines, and fiscal policy.
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Analyzes budget and appropriations legislation with particular focus on effects on low-income Americans.
- GovTrack: Tracks bills, votes, and committee activities, including appropriations and authorization legislation.
- USAspending.gov: Provides detailed information on how federal money is actually spent once appropriated.
Media Coverage
Several news outlets and publications specialize in congressional and budget coverage:
- Roll Call: Focuses on congressional activities, including detailed coverage of appropriations and authorization legislation.
- The Hill: Covers policy developments on Capitol Hill, including budget and appropriations news.
- Politico: Provides in-depth reporting on budget negotiations, appropriations bills, and fiscal policy debates.
- National Journal: Offers analysis of legislative developments, including authorization and appropriations processes.
While Congress provides numerous online resources for transparency, including live streams, transcripts, and reports, the volume of information and complexity of congressional procedure can be overwhelming. Making sense of this information requires proactive engagement and willingness to navigate technical sources.
The Impact on Government Performance
The two-step authorization-appropriation process has significant consequences for how effectively government functions.
When the Process Works Well
When authorizing and appropriating functions operate smoothly, they complement each other. Authorizing committees provide policy expertise and program design, while appropriations committees ensure fiscal discipline and prioritization.
This division of labor can produce well-designed programs with appropriate funding levels. Regular reauthorization ensures programs adapt to changing needs, while annual appropriations allow financial adjustments based on performance and emerging priorities.
When the Process Breaks Down
Current congressional dysfunction often undermines this ideal:
- Outdated Authorizations: Many programs operate under expired authorizations, sometimes decades old. This means their legal framework may not reflect current needs, technologies, or best practices.
- Budget Uncertainty: Chronic continuing resolutions create planning challenges for agencies, inhibiting efficient operations and strategic improvements.
- Resource Misalignment: The disconnect between authorized levels and appropriated amounts can produce programs that exist legally but lack sufficient resources to accomplish their missions effectively.
- Piecemeal Policy: When appropriations bills become vehicles for substantive policy changes, these provisions often lack thorough vetting and may create unintended consequences.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes that our current budget process “has broken down in almost every respect.” The increasing number of continuing resolutions, unauthorized appropriations, and omnibus spending packages demonstrates how far practice has diverged from the ideal two-step process.
Reform Proposals
Various experts and organizations have proposed reforms to improve the authorization-appropriation process:
Biennial Budgeting
Some reformers suggest moving to a two-year budget cycle, with one year focused on budget decisions and the second on oversight and authorization work. Proponents argue this would reduce time spent on annual appropriations and allow more attention to program effectiveness and policy updates.
Automatic Continuing Resolutions
To prevent government shutdowns without normalizing temporary funding measures, some propose automatic CRs that would take effect if regular appropriations aren’t enacted by deadline. Critics worry this would further reduce incentives to complete regular appropriations on time.
Strengthening Authorization Requirements
Various proposals aim to restore the importance of current authorizations by making it harder to fund unauthorized programs or by creating fast-track procedures for considering authorization bills.
Joint Authorization-Appropriation Process
More radical reforms suggest combining these functions in unified committees handling both policy and funding decisions for specific areas of government. This would eliminate the current division but might sacrifice specialized expertise.
Budget Process Committee
The Bipartisan Policy Center has proposed creating a permanent committee focused solely on improving and overseeing the budget process itself, potentially developing and implementing process reforms.
Conclusion
The two-step authorization-appropriation process represents an important institutional design within Congress. When functioning properly, it combines policy expertise with fiscal discipline to produce effective government programs with appropriate funding.
However, current congressional practice increasingly deviates from this ideal. Expired authorizations, chronic continuing resolutions, and blurred lines between policy and funding decisions have become the norm rather than exceptions.
Understanding these processes helps citizens comprehend how government actually works—not just how it’s supposed to work. This knowledge is essential for meaningful civic engagement and informed evaluation of congressional performance.
As debates about federal spending and government effectiveness continue, the relationship between authorization and appropriation will remain central to how America’s government functions. Whether through reform or renewed commitment to existing procedures, improving this process is crucial for addressing national challenges effectively.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstance.
