Understanding Authorizations vs. Appropriations

Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Congress has a special power that affects your everyday life: the “power of the purse.” This constitutional authority controls how federal money flows from tax collection to public services. But how does this actually work?

At the heart of federal funding are two crucial processes: authorizations and appropriations. Understanding the difference helps explain why some government programs exist on paper but lack funding, or why spending priorities sometimes seem disconnected from public expectations.

While the federal funding process has a formal structure designed for deliberation and control, its practical application is often more complex, influenced by political dynamics, urgent needs, and evolving interpretations of rules. The formal rules provide a roadmap, but the actual journey of a federal dollar can involve detours and shortcuts shaped by the pressures of governance.

Authorization – The Permission to Act

An authorization is a law passed by Congress that establishes or continues a federal agency, program, or activity. Think of it as the government giving itself permission to address an issue, whether it’s creating a cybersecurity agency, starting a renewable energy research initiative, or continuing a social program.

Authorizations define what a program will do, its responsibilities, and its organizational structure. This is where Congress debates and decides what the government should do and how it should work.

Without a valid authorization (or an underlying “organic” statute that serves a similar purpose), a government activity lacks a legal foundation.

The scope of an authorization can vary. Some authorizations have fixed periods, such as one, three, or five years, after which the program must be reauthorized by Congress. Others are indefinite or permanent, allowing activities to continue without an expiration date unless Congress later amends or terminates them.

Types of Authorizations

Authorizations come in several forms:

• Annual Authorizations: Some programs require authorization every year, especially in defense and intelligence. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a prime example. This annual requirement ensures frequent congressional review and allows for timely adjustments to policy in rapidly evolving sectors.
• Multi-year Authorizations: Many federal programs are authorized for several years (typically three to five). This provides stability for planning while still ensuring periodic congressional review.
• Permanent Authorizations: Some fundamental government functions and long-standing entitlement programs operate under permanent authorizations without expiration dates. This provides a stable legal basis for essential and ongoing government responsibilities.

Most authorization bills include language that “authorizes to be appropriated” specific amounts of money. This takes two main forms:

• Specified Amounts: The authorization may recommend exact dollar amounts for each fiscal year (like “$100 million for Fiscal Year 2025”). These figures express congressional intent regarding program scale but aren’t binding on appropriations committees.
• “Such Sums As May Be Necessary”: Often, authorizations use this indefinite language, giving maximum flexibility to appropriations committees to determine funding based on evolving needs, economic conditions, and budget constraints.

The Role of Authorizing Committees

The development and consideration of authorization bills are the primary responsibility of various legislative committees in the House and Senate, often called authorizing committees. Most standing committees in Congress, such as the House Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance, have authorizing jurisdiction over specific federal agencies and programs.

These committees handle the policy substance of legislation, including creating new programs, modifying existing ones, and conducting regular oversight of their implementation.

What Authorization Is Not

Critically, an authorization—even when it specifies a dollar amount—does not provide any actual money for a program or agency to operate. It’s just a permission slip, not a checkbook. The Government Accountability Office has clearly stated that “the mere authorization of an appropriation does not authorize expenditures on the faith thereof or the making of contracts obligating the money authorized to be appropriated.”

The distinction between an underlying “enabling” statute (which establishes the fundamental legal authority for an agency) and the more specific “authorization of appropriations” language matters. Congress often appropriates funds for programs where specific authorization language has expired. For Fiscal Year 2024, the Congressional Budget Office reported that $516 billion in appropriations was associated with 491 expired “authorizations of appropriations.”

This doesn’t necessarily mean these programs are operating illegally. The underlying enabling statute often still provides the legal basis for the program’s existence. The expiration of specific “authorization of appropriations” language means a particular procedural permission slip for funding is out of date, but appropriators may still fund the program based on its ongoing legal mandate and perceived importance. This highlights how the urgent need to fund ongoing government operations can lead to deviations from the ideal sequence of renewing all specific funding authorizations.

Appropriation – The Power to Spend

An appropriation is an act of Congress that provides legal authority for federal agencies to incur obligations (make financial commitments like signing contracts or hiring staff) and for the Treasury to make payments for specified purposes. It’s how Congress exercises its constitutional “power of the purse.”

If authorization is the permission slip, appropriation is the actual funding that makes government action possible.

The main purpose of an appropriation is to provide budget authority—the permission to spend federal money. Without an appropriation, a federal agency cannot legally enter into contracts, hire staff, purchase goods or services, or make grant awards, even if a program has been fully authorized.

The legal power of an appropriation is significant: it is a law. Once an appropriations bill passes both houses of Congress and receives the President’s signature, it directs that money can be drawn from the Treasury for stated purposes.

Appropriations typically cover a specific fiscal year (October 1 to September 30). Some appropriations can be available for longer periods or indefinitely until expended, particularly for large construction projects or certain trust funds.

Types of Appropriations

Congress uses several types of appropriations measures:

• Regular Appropriations Bills: These are the twelve standard annual spending bills that collectively fund the majority of federal departments and agencies. Each bill is developed by one of the twelve corresponding subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and covers a specific jurisdiction (e.g., Defense, Agriculture, Energy and Water Development).
• Supplemental Appropriations: These are additional appropriations enacted after the regular bills become law. They cover unexpected needs or emergencies during the fiscal year, such as disaster relief, unforeseen military operations, or urgent public health responses.
• Continuing Resolutions (CRs): When Congress and the President fail to enact some or all regular appropriations bills by October 1, a continuing resolution provides temporary funding for affected agencies. CRs usually fund activities at previous fiscal year levels for a limited period, preventing a government shutdown while negotiations on full-year funding continue.
• Permanent Appropriations: Some federal spending, particularly for mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt, is funded through permanent appropriations. The authorizing law itself contains language that makes budget authority automatically available each year without requiring further annual action by the Appropriations Committees.

The Role of Appropriations Committees

The House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations are responsible for drafting and reporting all discretionary appropriations bills. Each committee has 12 subcommittees with matching jurisdictions, and these subcommittees handle the initial drafting and review of their respective appropriations bills.

These committees determine the specific funding levels for nearly every federal agency and program relying on annual discretionary funding, operating within overall spending limits (known as 302(b) allocations) provided by the congressional budget resolution.

From Budget Authority to Outlays: How Money Actually Flows

Understanding the journey of appropriated funds involves several key terms:

• Budget Authority (BA): The legal permission granted by an appropriations act for a federal agency to enter into financial commitments that will result in government spending. Think of budget authority as the total amount Congress deposits into an agency’s “checking account” for a specific program or purpose.
• Obligations: An obligation occurs when a federal agency makes a legally binding commitment to spend funds. Examples include hiring an employee (committing to pay a salary), signing a contract with a supplier, or awarding a grant to a state government. This is like writing a check from the agency’s “checking account.” The Antideficiency Act prohibits agencies from obligating funds before an appropriation is made or in excess of the appropriated amount.
• Outlays: An outlay represents the actual disbursement of money from the Treasury to settle an obligation. This is when the “check is cashed,” and money actually flows out of the Treasury to pay for goods, services, salaries, or benefits. Outlays are the primary measure of government spending reported in federal budget documents.

Not all money appropriated in a fiscal year is spent in that same year. For large projects, such as aircraft carriers or dams, or for multi-year grant programs, the budget authority might be obligated when contracts are signed, but payments occur gradually over several years as work progresses.

For example, a $50 million appropriation to build a bridge might be obligated when the contract is signed, but the $50 million in outlays might not be fully realized until the bridge is completed years later. This lag explains why changes in appropriations levels don’t immediately translate into equivalent changes in government spending. It also underscores the long-term financial commitments that Congress makes when appropriating funds for multi-year projects.

The Two-Step Dance: How Authorizations and Appropriations Work Together

The federal funding process is often described as a “two-step dance” involving authorization and then appropriation. This sequence ensures both thoughtful policy development and responsible financial management.

The Sequential Process: Authorize First, Then Appropriate

The formal and intended procedure for most discretionary federal spending is sequential: Congress first enacts an authorization bill, and then, in a separate and subsequent action, it passes an appropriations bill to provide necessary funds.

The authorization step establishes the legal basis for a program or agency, defines its objectives, and sets parameters for its operation. It answers the question: What should the government do, and how should it be structured?

The appropriation step then provides the actual budget authority for the authorized program or agency to carry out its mission. It answers the question: How much money will be provided for this activity this year?

This separation is a deliberate design feature of the congressional budget process. It ensures that policy decisions—whether to create a new program, continue an existing one, or modify its scope—are considered on their merits by committees with relevant subject-matter expertise (the authorizing committees) before funding decisions are made by the Appropriations Committees.

This allows for focused debate on policy rationale distinct from purely fiscal concerns, and vice-versa.

Constitutional and Historical Basis for Separation

While the U.S. Constitution unequivocally mandates that appropriations must be “made by Law” for any money to be drawn from the Treasury, the two-step authorization-appropriation process itself evolved through congressional rules.

In the early years of the Republic, the distinction was less formal. As government grew and budgeting became more complex, Congress developed rules to manage its workload and prevent policy debates from delaying essential funding bills.

A significant problem in the early 19th century was delay in enacting appropriations because these bills often became vehicles for “debatable matters of another character, new laws which created long debates.” To address this, the House of Representatives adopted a formal rule in 1837, and the Senate followed in 1850, generally limiting appropriations to purposes previously authorized by law. This established the principle of separate consideration for policy (authorization) and funding (appropriation).

Making It Simple: Helpful Analogies

To understand this two-step process better, consider these analogies:

The “Shopping List and Wallet” Analogy:

• Authorization is like creating a detailed shopping list for your household. You might list items like “milk, bread, and eggs for healthy breakfasts.” This list establishes your policy (promoting healthy breakfasts) and identifies specific items needed to achieve that policy. The authorizing committees perform a similar function by identifying national needs and creating programs to address them.
• Appropriation is like checking your wallet to see how much money you actually have and deciding how much to spend on each item. You might afford everything, or prioritize, perhaps buying less expensive bread or forgoing organic eggs. The Appropriations Committees do this by reviewing all “authorized” items and deciding how much actual funding to allocate based on budget constraints and competing priorities.

The “Building Permit and Construction Budget” Analogy:

• Authorization is like a city government issuing a building permit for a community recreation center. The permit formally approves the project, outlines what can be built (size, features like a pool or gym), its intended purpose, and perhaps an estimated cost. It grants legal permission to proceed.
• Appropriation is like the city council actually allocating funds needed to hire architects, purchase materials, and pay construction workers. Without this dedicated budget, the building permit remains just a plan on paper, and no construction can begin.

These analogies illustrate that authorization provides the permission and plan, while appropriation provides the money to make it real. Both are essential for government action.

The ideal separation of authorization and appropriation fosters thorough deliberation on both policy matters and fiscal implications. Authorizing committees can focus on program merits and design, while Appropriations Committees concentrate on affordability and resource allocation across the entire government.

However, this bifurcated system can create bottlenecks. Programs that are successfully authorized may languish for years without receiving any, or adequate, funding—a situation known as an “unfunded authorization.” Conversely, the need to pass appropriations bills to keep the government running can sometimes lead to funding for programs whose specific “authorization of appropriations” has expired, or policy provisions being attached to “must-pass” spending bills, blurring the lines the rules were designed to maintain.

This tension between orderly, separate consideration and the practical pressures of governing is a persistent feature of the federal budget process.

The Annual Federal Budget Lifecycle: A Step-by-Step Guide

The federal budget process is an annual cycle involving the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress. While specific timelines vary in practice, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and other laws establish a general framework.

The President’s Budget Request (First Monday in February)

The formal budget process begins when the President submits a comprehensive budget proposal to Congress, usually on or before the first Monday in February for the upcoming fiscal year (beginning October 1).

This extensive document, prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in consultation with all federal agencies, outlines the Administration’s policy priorities, proposed spending levels, revenue projections, and economic outlook.

Remember that the President’s budget is a request or a set of recommendations; Congress is not obligated to adopt it and often makes significant changes.

Congress Creates a Budget Resolution (Target: April 15)

Following the President’s budget submission, the House and Senate Budget Committees begin drafting their respective versions of a congressional budget resolution.

The budget resolution is a concurrent resolution, meaning it must pass both the House and Senate in identical form, but it doesn’t go to the President for signature and doesn’t have the force of law. Instead, it serves as an internal congressional blueprint.

Key elements include:

• Overall targets for federal spending and revenues for at least the next five fiscal years
• Projected deficit or surplus levels
• 302(a) allocations dividing total spending among various congressional committees based on their jurisdictions

The House and Senate Appropriations Committees further subdivide their 302(a) allocation into 302(b) allocations for each of their 12 subcommittees. These 302(b)s act as spending caps for each of the 12 annual appropriations bills.

The budget resolution’s spending and revenue targets are enforced within Congress through points of order (parliamentary objections that can block legislation violating the resolution’s terms).

The target date for completing the budget resolution is April 15. However, this deadline is frequently missed, and in some years, Congress fails to pass a budget resolution at all. When this happens, “deeming resolutions” or other procedural tools may establish enforceable spending levels for the appropriations process.

Crafting the 12 Appropriations Bills (May-September)

Once the budget resolution (or a substitute measure) is in place and 302(b) allocations are set, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, working through their 12 counterpart subcommittees, begin drafting the 12 regular appropriations bills. Each funds a specific group of federal departments, agencies, and programs.

The process for each bill typically involves:

• Hearings: Subcommittees hold public hearings where agency officials testify and justify their budget requests.
• Markup: Subcommittees “mark up” (draft and amend) their respective appropriations bills. These are then considered by the full Appropriations Committee.
• Floor Consideration: Approved bills go to the full House or Senate for debate, amendment, and passage.
• Resolving Differences: Since the House and Senate usually pass different versions of each bill, these differences must be reconciled. This typically happens through a conference committee of members from both chambers who negotiate a compromise. Alternatively, differences can be resolved through an exchange of amendments between the two houses (often called “ping-pong”). The final agreed-upon bill must then pass both the House and Senate.

The Role of Authorizing Legislation Throughout the Year

While the appropriations process focuses on the annual budget cycle, authorizing legislation for various federal programs is considered throughout the year, as needed.

Authorizations can be for a single year, multiple years, or permanent. When a multi-year authorization is set to expire, the relevant authorizing committee (e.g., House Energy and Commerce, Senate Armed Services) reviews the program and, if appropriate, drafts legislation to reauthorize it.

This reauthorization process allows Congress to update program rules, adjust scope, and affirm continued necessity, providing a policy foundation for future appropriations.

Presidential Signature or Veto (By October 1)

Once an appropriations bill has passed both the House and Senate in identical form, it is “enrolled” and sent to the President, who has several options:

• Sign the bill: It becomes law.
• Veto the bill: The President rejects it by returning it to Congress with objections. Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers, though this is relatively rare.
• Allow the bill to become law without signature: If Congress is in session and the President doesn’t act within ten days (excluding Sundays), it automatically becomes law.
• Pocket Veto: If Congress adjourns during the ten-day period and the President doesn’t sign, it’s considered a “pocket veto” and doesn’t become law.

The goal is to have all 12 regular appropriations bills enacted by October 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

This prescribed timeline is frequently not met in practice. Delays are common at almost every stage, particularly in passing the budget resolution and completing the appropriations bills. This often leads to multiple Continuing Resolutions to prevent government shutdowns and can result in several, or all, of the appropriations bills being bundled into massive “omnibus” spending packages passed late in the year, sometimes after the new fiscal year has begun.

Such practices reduce transparency, limit opportunities for debate and amendment on specific spending items, and concentrate decision-making power in the hands of congressional leadership and a small number of negotiators. This creates significant uncertainty for federal agencies trying to plan their operations and expenditures.

Simplified Federal Budget Process Timeline

This timeline provides a structured way to understand the intended flow of the budget process, helping citizens identify key milestones and the actors involved at each stage.

Key Players and Their Watchdog Roles

The federal budget process involves a multitude of actors, each with distinct responsibilities and influence. Understanding these roles helps decipher how budgetary decisions are shaped and implemented.

Executive Branch

The President plays a central role in initiating the budget process by submitting an annual budget request to Congress. This proposal reflects the administration’s policy priorities, economic forecasts, and recommended funding levels for federal agencies and programs. The President also has the ultimate authority to sign appropriations bills into law or to veto them, thereby influencing the final outcome of the spending process.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) located within the Executive Office of the President, is the President’s primary arm for budget development and execution. Its responsibilities include:

• Developing and submitting the President’s annual budget request to Congress
• Providing guidance to federal agencies on budget preparation
• Reviewing agency budget submissions and ensuring they align with presidential priorities
• Overseeing the execution of the enacted budget, including the apportionment (distribution) of funds to agencies
• Issuing directives and circulars, such as OMB Circular A-11, which provides detailed instructions to agencies on budget preparation, submission, and execution

Legislative Branch

Authorizing Committees are the standing committees of the House and Senate (e.g., House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) responsible for legislation that establishes, continues, or modifies federal programs and policies. Most standing committees have authorizing responsibilities. They conduct oversight of programs within their jurisdiction and may include recommended funding levels in authorization bills, though these aren’t binding on the appropriations process.

Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are exclusively responsible for drafting and considering the 12 annual appropriations bills that provide discretionary funding for the federal government. They determine specific dollar amounts allocated to agencies and programs, operating within overall spending limits set by the congressional budget resolution.

Budget Committees in the House and Senate draft the annual congressional budget resolution. This resolution sets overall targets for spending, revenues, deficit or surplus, and public debt. It also allocates spending authority (302(a) allocations) to other congressional committees, including the Appropriations Committees.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a non-partisan agency created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide Congress with objective, impartial information and analyses related to the budget and economy. Key functions include:

• Preparing economic forecasts and baseline budget projections
• Providing cost estimates for proposed legislation (“scoring bills”)
• Analyzing the President’s budget
• Publishing reports on various budgetary and economic issues

CBO’s analyses are crucial for informing congressional decision-making and enforcing budget rules.

Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the “congressional watchdog,” the GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. Its roles include:

• Auditing federal agency operations to determine if funds are being spent efficiently and effectively
• Issuing legal decisions and opinions on appropriations law, including interpretations of the Antideficiency Act and the Impoundment Control Act
• Reporting to Congress on violations of fiscal laws
• Publishing standards for internal controls in the federal government (the “Green Book”) and the “Principles of Federal Appropriations Law” (often called the “Red Book”), a key reference for federal officials and congressional staff

Special Interest Groups and Other Stakeholders

Various special interest groups, non-governmental organizations, industry associations, and members of the public actively seek to influence the budget process. They do this by lobbying members of Congress and executive branch officials, testifying at congressional hearings, conducting research and analysis, and mobilizing public support for their preferred spending priorities or policy changes. Their advocacy can impact both authorization and appropriation decisions.

The federal budget process is characterized by an ongoing interplay between technical expertise and political will. Agencies like the CBO and GAO provide non-partisan, data-driven analysis intended to foster sound fiscal management and adherence to legal frameworks. OMB, while serving the President’s policy agenda, also has a critical technical role in budget assembly and execution.

However, the ultimate decisions on authorizations and appropriations made by Congress and the President are profoundly shaped by political priorities, constituent demands, partisan negotiations, and electoral considerations. This dynamic frequently leads to situations where formal rules are bent, deadlines are missed, or expert advice is weighed against other pressing concerns.

Understanding this tension between procedural ideals and political realities is fundamental to comprehending why the budget process unfolds as it does and why outcomes can sometimes appear disconnected from formal rules.

When the System Bends or Breaks: Common Challenges

The idealized two-step process of authorization followed by appropriation, governed by a clear annual timeline, often encounters significant challenges in practice. These deviations from “regular order” have become common features of the modern federal budget process.

Unfunded Authorizations & Expired “Authorizations of Appropriations”

Unfunded Authorizations describes a situation where Congress legally establishes a program or activity through an authorization bill, but subsequently fails to provide any funding (appropriation) for it. The program exists in law, but without financial resources, it cannot operate or achieve its intended purpose. This can happen due to shifting political priorities, budget constraints that force difficult choices, or a lack of consensus on the program’s value after its initial authorization.

Expired “Authorizations of Appropriations” is a more nuanced and widespread issue. Many authorization laws include specific language, often time-limited, that “authorizes to be appropriated” certain funding levels for a program (e.g., “There are authorized to be appropriated $X million for fiscal years 2020-2024”). When this specific time-limited permission to appropriate funds lapses, the “authorization of appropriations” is said to have expired.

It’s crucial to distinguish this from the expiration of the underlying “enabling” or “organic” statute that originally established the program or agency. In many cases, the underlying legal authority for the program to exist remains in effect even if the specific “authorization of appropriations” language has expired.

The scale of this phenomenon is substantial. For Fiscal Year 2024, the Congressional Budget Office identified $516 billion in appropriations associated with 491 such expired “authorizations of appropriations.” For FY2022, the figure was $461 billion for 422 expired authorizations. Many of these specific funding authorizations had expired more than a decade prior.

This occurs for various reasons, including the sheer volume of authorizations requiring renewal, political disagreements that stall reauthorization bills, or a congressional focus on providing funding through appropriations even if the specific authorization for that funding level is out of date.

The consequences include potential uncertainty for programs and a reduction in the regular, structured oversight that the reauthorization process is intended to provide. However, as long as the underlying enabling law for the program remains valid, continued appropriations are generally considered legally permissible.

Appropriations Without Current Authorization (“Unauthorized Appropriations”)

This term broadly refers to situations where Congress appropriates funds for a program or activity that either lacks a current, specific authorization, or where the appropriation exceeds an amount explicitly limited in an authorization law. This most commonly arises from the “expired authorization of appropriations” scenario discussed above.

House and Senate Rules:

• House Rule XXI, Clause 2(a)(1) generally prohibits appropriations in a general appropriations bill (or amendments thereto) for any expenditure not previously authorized by law. There is an exception for public works already in progress.
• Senate Rule XVI, Paragraph 1 is more narrowly applied. It primarily restricts amendments offered by individual Senators to general appropriations bills that would add new items or increase existing appropriations unless the funding is to carry out an existing law, a treaty, an act already passed by the Senate in that session, is directed by a committee, or is pursuant to a formal budget estimate from the President. The Senate rule is generally considered less restrictive than its House counterpart regarding what constitutes an unauthorized appropriation.

Points of Order and Waivers: Members of Congress can raise a “point of order” (a parliamentary objection) against an appropriation they believe violates these rules. However, these rules are not self-enforcing; a member must actively raise the objection. Furthermore, these rules can be, and frequently are, waived. In the House, waivers are commonly granted through “special rules” reported by the Rules Committee. In the Senate, waivers can occur by a specific vote (often requiring a supermajority) or by unanimous consent.

Legal Status of “Unauthorized Appropriations”: Crucially, if an appropriation for a program with an expired specific “authorization of appropriations” is enacted into law—either because no point of order was raised, a point of order was not sustained, or the rule was waived—that appropriation generally has the full force of law. The funds are legally available for obligation and expenditure by the agency. The Government Accountability Office has opined that an enacted appropriation can, in effect, carry its own authorization, particularly if the underlying program itself is legally established by an organic or enabling statute.

Continuing Resolutions (CRs): Keeping the Government Open

When Congress and the President cannot agree on and enact the 12 regular appropriations bills by the October 1 start of the fiscal year, they often resort to Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to prevent a government shutdown.

Purpose and Funding Levels: CRs are temporary, stop-gap funding measures that allow federal agencies to continue operating, typically at the previous fiscal year’s funding rate (or a formula based on it) for a specified period (e.g., a few weeks or months).

Impact on New Initiatives and Planning: A significant limitation of CRs is that they generally prohibit “new starts”—funding for new programs, projects, or activities that were not funded in the previous year, even if those new activities have been authorized by Congress. CRs also create considerable uncertainty for federal agencies, making long-term planning difficult, delaying hiring processes, complicating contract awards, and adding administrative burdens.

Agencies may hesitate to initiate new projects or fill vacancies when their funding is only guaranteed for a short period. CRs typically provide funding for programs by referencing prior fiscal year appropriations; thus, if a program’s specific authorization of appropriations has lapsed but it was funded in the prior year and its underlying programmatic authorization still exists, it would likely continue to receive funding under a CR.

Omnibus and Minibus Spending Bills

Particularly when facing the end of a fiscal year or the expiration of a CR, Congress often packages multiple (sometimes all 12) regular appropriations bills into a single, large legislative vehicle known as an “omnibus” appropriations bill. A smaller package containing several, but not all, appropriations bills is sometimes called a “minibus.”

Consequences: While these consolidated bills can be a necessary tool to overcome legislative gridlock and ensure the government is funded, they often reduce transparency and limit opportunities for thorough debate and amendment on individual spending items. Due to their “must-pass” nature, omnibus bills can also become vehicles for controversial policy provisions (“riders”) that might not pass as standalone legislation.

Government Shutdowns: When Funding Fails

A government shutdown occurs if appropriations are not enacted by the start of the fiscal year (October 1) and no Continuing Resolution is in place, or if a CR expires without further funding action.

Causes: Shutdowns are typically the result of fundamental disagreements between Congress (or factions within it) and the President over spending levels, policy riders attached to appropriations bills, or other major policy disputes that become entangled with the funding process. These breakdowns can be related to authorization issues, such as attempts to use appropriations bills to fund unauthorized activities via policy riders, or intractable disputes over funding levels for already authorized programs.

Consequences: During a shutdown, federal agencies lacking appropriations must cease all non-essential operations. This can lead to the furlough (temporary unpaid leave) of hundreds of thousands of federal employees, disruption of government services (e.g., closure of national parks, delays in processing applications), and negative economic impacts.

The frequency of these challenges—unfunded or expired authorizations, appropriations without current specific authorization language, reliance on CRs and omnibus bills, and the recurring threat of government shutdowns—underscores a critical aspect of the federal budget process: the formal rules and procedures are often flexible and can be subordinated to political imperatives.

The existence of waiver mechanisms for points of order in both the House and Senate explicitly acknowledges that the rules will not always be strictly adhered to. Political dynamics, time constraints, and deep policy disagreements often lead to deviations from the “regular order” budget process.

For citizens, understanding this tension is key to deciphering why the budget process can appear convoluted and why outcomes may differ from what formal procedures might otherwise suggest.

Key Differences: Authorization vs. Appropriation

The Legal Guardrails: Key Laws Shaping the Process

The federal budget process is not arbitrary; it is framed by the U.S. Constitution and a series of landmark statutes. These legal guardrails establish the powers, procedures, and limitations that govern how public funds are authorized and appropriated.

Constitutional Foundations

Three key constitutional provisions underpin the entire federal funding process:

Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7): This is the bedrock. It states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”. This clause firmly establishes Congress’s ultimate control over federal spending and mandates that no public funds can be spent without a specific law (an appropriation act) authorizing that expenditure.

Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1): This clause requires that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…”. While this clause directly addresses revenue (tax) bills, it has historically influenced the practice whereby appropriations bills also traditionally originate in the House. This reflects the principle that the chamber more directly accountable to the people should initiate financial legislation.

Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): This grants Congress the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…”. In the context of budgeting, this clause provides Congress with the implied authority to create the complex system of rules, committees, and procedures—including those for authorization and appropriation—needed to effectively manage its constitutional “power of the purse.”

Budget and Accounting Act of 1921

Significance: This Act was a watershed moment, fundamentally reforming federal budgeting by establishing, for the first time, a unified executive budget process. Before 1921, federal agencies often submitted their budget requests independently to Congress without central coordination.

Key Provisions:

• Required the President to submit an annual, comprehensive budget proposal to Congress for all government agencies
• Created the Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB) within the Executive Branch to assist the President in preparing the budget and overseeing its execution

Impact on Authorization/Appropriation: By centralizing the request for appropriations within the Executive Branch, the Act provided Congress with a coherent, government-wide starting point for its own authorization and appropriation deliberations.

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CBA)

Significance: This landmark legislation established the modern congressional budget process, empowering Congress to develop its own budget priorities independently of the President and to coordinate its various spending and revenue decisions.

Key Provisions:

• Created the House and Senate Budget Committees
• Established the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide non-partisan budget and economic analysis to Congress
• Instituted the concurrent budget resolution process, through which Congress sets overall spending and revenue targets
• Formalized reconciliation procedures as a tool to align existing laws with budget resolution policies
• Established rules and procedures for budget enforcement, including the 302(a) and 302(b) allocation processes that distribute spending limits to committees and subcommittees

Impact on Authorization/Appropriation: The CBA created the comprehensive framework within which Congress makes its authorization and appropriation decisions. It provides mechanisms for setting overall fiscal policy, allocating resources among competing priorities, and enforcing budgetary discipline throughout the legislative process.

Antideficiency Act (ADA)

Significance: The Antideficiency Act is a critical fiscal control statute designed to prevent federal officials from spending or obligating funds in ways not permitted by law.

Key Provisions:

• Prohibits federal employees from making or authorizing expenditures or obligations in advance of an appropriation or in excess of the amount appropriated by Congress or apportioned by OMB
• Prohibits accepting voluntary services for the government, except in emergencies involving human life or property
• Requires agencies to establish systems of administrative control to prevent overspending
• Stipulates that violations can result in administrative discipline (including removal from office) and potential criminal penalties (fines or imprisonment). Agency heads must report violations to the President, Congress, and the GAO.

Impact on Authorization/Appropriation: The ADA directly enforces the principle that an appropriation is an absolute prerequisite before public funds can be obligated or spent. It powerfully reinforces the distinction between an authorization (which permits a program) and an appropriation (which provides the funds). By preventing agencies from spending based solely on an authorization or exceeding their appropriated limits, the ADA ensures adherence to congressional funding decisions.

Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Title X of the CBA)

Significance: This Act limits the President’s ability to unilaterally withhold or cancel funds that Congress has appropriated. It was enacted in response to past executive branch attempts to refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds.

Key Provisions:

• Requires the President to send a special message to Congress if they propose to rescind (permanently cancel) or defer (temporarily delay) the obligation or expenditure of budget authority
• Rescissions: Proposed cancellations of funds. The President can withhold the funds for up to 45 days of continuous congressional session, but the rescission only takes effect if Congress passes a law approving it within that timeframe. If Congress does not act, the funds must be made available for obligation.
• Deferrals: Temporary delays in spending. Deferrals are only permitted for specific reasons (e.g., for contingencies, to achieve savings from efficiencies) and cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year.
• The Government Accountability Office (GAO) plays an oversight role, reviewing presidential impoundment messages and reporting to Congress.

Impact on Authorization/Appropriation: The Impoundment Control Act ensures that once funds are appropriated by Congress (often based on prior authorizations), the Executive Branch generally must make those funds available for their intended purposes. It prevents the President from effectively cancelling authorized and appropriated programs by simply refusing to spend the money, thereby safeguarding Congress’s power of the purse.

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

Significance: These laws aim to improve federal program management, accountability, and effectiveness by requiring agencies to focus on results and performance.

Key Provisions:

• Require federal agencies to develop multiyear strategic plans (outlining mission, long-term goals, and performance measures)
• Mandate annual performance plans (setting specific performance goals for the fiscal year) and annual performance reports (detailing progress towards those goals)
• The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 further aimed to integrate performance information into budget decisions and establish a central inventory of federal programs

Impact on Authorization/Appropriation: GPRA is intended to provide Congress and the public with better information on program effectiveness. This performance data can, in theory, inform decisions made during the authorization process (e.g., whether to continue or modify a program) and the appropriation process (e.g., determining appropriate funding levels based on results achieved). It seeks to link budget requests and resource allocation more closely to measurable performance goals.

These laws collectively create the formal architecture of the U.S. federal budget process. However, the actual practice of budgeting is dynamic. Congressional practices, evolving political landscapes, and new fiscal challenges constantly test and reshape how these foundational laws are implemented.

For instance, while the Budget and Accounting Act and the CBA established the basic structures for executive and congressional budgeting that are still largely in place today, the frequent reliance on Continuing Resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills, as well as the persistent issue of appropriations for programs with expired specific funding authorizations, demonstrate that the process often deviates from the timelines and procedures envisioned by these acts.

This highlights that while the legal framework is fundamental, it is not a rigid blueprint that dictates all outcomes. Understanding these laws provides the “rules of the game,” but observing congressional behavior reveals how the game is actually played.

Key Budget Laws and Their Core Functions

Why This Matters to You: Making Sense of Government Spending

The intricacies of authorizations and appropriations, while seemingly bureaucratic, have profound and direct consequences for the lives of all Americans. Understanding this funding process is not merely an academic exercise; it is a key to deciphering how government priorities are set, how public services are delivered, and how citizens can effectively engage in democratic governance.

Impact on Public Services and Programs

The federal budget, shaped by authorization and appropriation decisions, determines the scope and scale of a vast array of public services and programs that citizens interact with daily or rely upon during critical life stages. Consider these examples:

National Parks and Environmental Protection: The funding available for maintaining national parks, enforcing environmental regulations, and investing in conservation efforts is decided through appropriations, based on programs authorized by Congress.

Transportation Infrastructure: The quality of roads, bridges, airports, and public transit systems depends on federal funding allocated through this process.

Education: Federal support for K-12 schools, Pell Grants for college students, Head Start programs for early childhood education, and funding for scientific research at universities are all subject to authorization and appropriation.

Healthcare: Funding for agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for medical research, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ensuring drug and food safety, and public health initiatives through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are determined annually. Even major mandatory programs like Medicare and Medicaid, while having permanent authorizations, can see their administrative funding or specific grant programs within them affected by annual appropriations.

Public Safety and Defense: The resources available for national defense, law enforcement agencies like the FBI, disaster relief through FEMA, and airport security via the TSA are all products of these budgetary decisions.

Social Services: Programs supporting veterans, providing food assistance (like SNAP, though its benefits are mandatory, its administrative funding can be discretionary), or offering housing aid are all shaped by the interplay of authorization and appropriation.

When a program is robustly authorized and adequately appropriated, it has the potential to deliver its intended benefits effectively. Conversely, if a program is authorized with ambitious goals but receives little or no appropriation (an “unfunded authorization”), it becomes a hollow promise, unable to serve the public as intended. Similarly, if appropriations for an existing, vital program are significantly cut, the quality and reach of its services will inevitably diminish.

Empowering Citizens for Civic Engagement and Accountability

A clear understanding of the authorization versus appropriation distinction is crucial for effective civic engagement and holding elected officials accountable. Knowing this difference allows citizens to:

Target Advocacy Effectively: If a desired government action or program does not yet exist, the advocacy focus should be on persuading Congress to pass an authorization bill. This involves engaging with the legislative committees that have jurisdiction over that policy area. If a program is already authorized but is underperforming due to lack of resources, the advocacy focus shifts to the appropriations process, urging members of the Appropriations Committees to provide adequate funding.

Ask More Precise Questions of Elected Officials: Instead of simply asking if a representative “supports” a program, citizens can ask more pointed questions: “Did you vote to authorize this program?” and “Did you vote to fully fund this program at its authorized level (if specified) or at a level sufficient to meet its goals?”

Understand Legislative Behavior: Sometimes, a legislator might vote to authorize a popular program to demonstrate policy support but then vote against or fail to champion robust appropriations for it due to fiscal concerns or other priorities. Understanding both steps allows citizens to see the full picture of their representatives’ actions.

Decipher Budgetary News and Debates: News reports about “budget cuts,” “funding increases,” or “program eliminations” become much clearer when one understands whether the discussion pertains to changing an authorization (altering the policy or legal basis) or an appropriation (adjusting the annual funding level).

Addressing Common Questions and Misunderstandings

Many common frustrations and misunderstandings about government action (or inaction) can be clarified by understanding the authorization-appropriation dynamic:

“Why isn’t the government doing more about X problem?” The issue might be that no program has been authorized to address problem X, or an authorized program exists but has never received significant appropriations.

“Congress voted to create Program Y, so why isn’t it up and running?” Congress may have passed an authorization bill for Program Y, but if the appropriations committees haven’t yet allocated funds, or allocated very little, the program cannot be implemented effectively.

“What’s the real difference between the President’s budget and what Congress actually spends?” The President’s budget is a comprehensive proposal or request. Congress, through its own budget resolution, subsequent authorization bills (for policy and program structure), and ultimately appropriations bills (for funding), decides the actual spending levels. The President’s signature is then required for appropriations bills to become law.

“What does a government shutdown really mean for funding?” A government shutdown signifies a failure in the appropriations process. It means that Congress and the President have not agreed on and enacted the necessary appropriations bills (or a Continuing Resolution) to provide budget authority for affected federal agencies to continue their operations. Authorized programs cannot operate without appropriated funds.

Ultimately, the federal budget process, with its distinct stages of authorization and appropriation, is far more than a dry accounting exercise. It is a fundamental mechanism through which national values are debated and priorities are established.

The decisions made—what policies are authorized, which programs are created or continued, and critically, how much funding is appropriated to each—are tangible expressions of the nation’s collective choices as enacted by its elected representatives. An informed citizenry, equipped with an understanding of this vital process, is better able to participate in shaping these choices and ensuring that the government remains accountable for how it wields the power of the purse.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.