LegiStorm

Summary:

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R44124 Summary In general, congressional reports may accompany appropriations measures as part of either the committee stage or the resolving differences stage of the legislative process. Although this language is not considered binding in the same manner as language in the statute, the congressional understanding of an appropriations measure is closely related to its development. There are appropriations-specific components and practices related to report language that have been developed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to better enable their oversight of the agencies. There are also components that have come about as a result of chamber rules to provide greater information on appropriations measures in order to facilitate their congressional consideration. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of appropriations report language. Although appropriations report language is primarily developed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, those committees have formal and informal practices that enable input on the language from a variety of sources, including programmatic requests that are submitted to the committees from Members of Congress. When appropriators meet to mark up an appropriations measure, amendments to the draft report may also be offered and considered in committee. While report language cannot be directly amended on the floor, it is sometimes possible to propose amendments to an appropriations bill that have the effect of overriding language in the report. During the resolving differences stage of the legislative process, congressional negotiators also seek to address differences between the relevant House and Senate appropriations report language in the joint explanatory statement or other explanatory text produced as a result of those negotiations. In current practice, report language does not accompany formulaic continuing resolutions (CRs), even if funds are provided in this manner for the remainder of the fiscal year. In current practice, appropriations report language has a number of typical components. The bulk of appropriations report language is devoted to a "section-by-section" analysis of each account and a lengthy table that provides a "comparative statement of new budget authority" in the bill. The report language may also provide general directives to the agencies funded in the bill related to budget preparation and execution, including the form of budget justifications, other reporting guidelines and committee initiatives, "program, project, or activity" (PPA) definitions, and reprogramming. The Congressional Budget Act requires that the 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. Finally, the House has additional requirements that rescissions and transfers, as well as language changing existing law, be listed in committee reports accompanying general appropriations measures. Appropriations report language raises certain issues for Congress. Each fiscal year, as the Appropriations Committees choose the directives that will be made to agencies, they must decide which of these directives to include in the bill itself and which to include in report language. Over time, as the House and Senate develop rules that govern the content of appropriations report language, each chamber must assess its informational needs as it engages in appropriations decisionmaking. The House and Senate may choose to take similar or differing approaches to its rules relating to appropriations report language, and such rules may be altered as the institutional needs of each chamber evolve. Contents Introduction 1 Appropriations Report Language Development 2 Agency, Public, and Member Input 2 Committee and Initial Floor Consideration 3 Resolving Differences 4 Continuing Resolutions 5 Appropriations Report Language Components 6 Overview of Accounts and Other Directives 6 Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority 8 General Directives Related to Budget Preparation and Budget Execution 9 Form of Budget Justifications 9 Other Reporting Guidelines and Committee Initiatives 10 "Program, Project, or Activity" Definitions 10 Reprogramming Guidelines 12 Comparison with the Budget Resolution 13 Language Changing Existing Law 14 Appropriations Not Authorized by Law 16 Rescissions and Transfers 19 Issues for Congress 20 Congressional Influence over Budgetary Decisionmaking 21 The Congressional Budget Process Context for Appropriations Decisionmaking 22 Figures Figure 1.: Detailed Funds Allocation 8 Figure 2.: Comparison with the Budget Resolution 14 Figure 3.: Changes in the Application of Existing Law 16 Figure 4.: Senate List of Appropriations Not Authorized by Law 17 Figure 5.: Rescissions and Transfers 20 Contacts Author Contact Information 23 Acknowledgments 23 Introduction Since the first Congress, the congressional appropriations process has involved the annual consideration of appropriations measures to fund the activities of most federal government agencies. Over the years, this process has evolved so that it currently assumes the consideration of 12 regular appropriations bills to provide discretionary spending for the upcoming fiscal year. If some or all of the regular appropriations measures are not enacted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1), one or more continuing resolutions (CRs) might be enacted to provide temporary appropriations until either regular appropriations are enacted or the fiscal year ends. Supplemental appropriations might also be enacted during the fiscal year to provide funds in addition to those in regular appropriations acts or CRs. The congressional process for considering these various types of appropriations measures has developed in the context of institutional considerations that are both internal and external. Internal considerations include long-standing congressional rules that encourage the separation of money and policy decisions ("appropriations" and "authorizations," respectively), as well as the constraints of previously agreed upon fiscal policies and goals, such as those associated with the budget resolution. Additional external considerations, which largely derive from the relationship between Congress and the agencies funded through the annual appropriations process, include issues such as the level of flexibility that Congress grants to agencies in budget execution. One way that the congressional appropriations process has evolved to address these internal and external considerations has been in the form and content of report language that accompanies appropriations measures. In general, report language is used by House and Senate committees for two broad purposes. First, report language explains the provisions of a measure to the chamber or chambers that will subsequently consider it. Second, report language may also communicate legislative intent to the agencies that will carry out the measure once it becomes law. Although report language itself is not law and therefore not binding in the same manner as language in the statute, agencies usually seek to comply with any directives contained therein. As one congressional scholar has 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." For this reason, congressional interest in the mechanics of the appropriations process is not limited to the procedures and practices for considering measures but also encompasses the report language that accompanies those measures. Typically, report language may be used to supplement the legislative text of a measure at either of two different stages of the legislative process. First, written reports may accompany the version of the bill that is reported by a committee to its parent chamber. The House has required that written reports accompany bills reported from committee since 1880. While Senate rules do not require written reports, measures reported from committee are usually accompanied by or otherwise associated with them. Second, when resolving differences between the House and Senate, a joint explanatory statement (JES), which accompanies a conference report prior to final action by each chamber, is also a form of report language. The JES may be used to reconcile areas of disagreement between the House and Senate committee reports from earlier stages of the legislative process or to provide additional information about the agreement. For measures not reported from committee that receive congressional consideration, including when differences are resolved through an amendment exchange, explanatory text from the committee of jurisdiction is sometimes entered into the Congressional Record and may be regarded similarly to report language for certain purposes. In addition, in some cases, report language in the JES may be enacted by reference in the appropriations law that it accompanies, giving it statutory effect. This CRS report provides an overview of appropriations report language. It generally does not explain those report language components and related practices that are more broadly applicable to all types of legislation, including the House and Senate rules that require congressionally directed spending items, or "earmarks," to be disclosed in committee reports. The first section of this CRS report explains how appropriations report language is developed. The second section discusses the origins, purposes, and forms of the major report language components that are particular to appropriations measures, with illustrative examples. The third section summarizes appropriations report language issues related to congressional influence over agency budgetary decisionmaking, as well as the institutional dynamics within Congress itself. Appropriations Report Language Development Agency, Public, and Member Input In general, the report language accompanying an appropriations measure is developed by the appropriations committees in each chamber. While it is a committee product, it has significant importance for the congressional consideration of that appropriations measure, as well as agency budget execution once the measure becomes law. When determining the language to be included in the report, the Appropriations Committees engage in certain formal and informal practices through which they may receive input on the language. For example, a review of the agency budget justifications that are submitted after the President's budget request may inform prospective funding allocations and congressional directives contained in the report. Other committee communications with the agency, both before and after the budget submission, may also help inform the language that is ultimately included. In addition, stakeholders and other interested groups outside of Congress may also choose to communicate their report language and other appropriations preferences to the Appropriations Committees through letters or other modes of communication. Members of the House and Senate may also communicate to the Appropriations Committees their preferences with regard to each of the 12 annual appropriations bills and accompanying report language. While such communications might occur throughout the budget cycle, the committees encourage Members to express their preferences for the upcoming fiscal year through the submission of so-called "programmatic and language requests." These are requests for specific funding levels or other language to be included in a particular appropriations bill or the accompanying committee report. These requests are usually due to the committees in March or April after the President's budget request has been presented to Congress. The parameters for these requests for each of the appropriations bills may be specified through Dear Colleague letters or other communications from the committee. In general, both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have discouraged programmatic requests for congressionally directed spending items (also referred to as "earmarks"). Once programmatic and language requests for a bill are submitted, the committee must decide whether to include the requested language in the bill or accompanying report, include a modified version of it, or not include it at all. In some instances, if language is requested for inclusion in the bill, the committee might decide to include a version of that language in the committee report instead. Committee and Initial Floor Consideration Each appropriations bill that is reported from committee—which, in current practice, includes regular and some supplemental appropriations bills—is usually accompanied by a written committee report. Committee preparation of an appropriations bill for a markup also includes compiling a draft of the committee report that will accompany it. When the Appropriations Committee meets 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 committee's written report is filed when the bill is reported to the chamber. In the Senate, it is typically filed at the same time the bill is reported or soon thereafter. While appropriations measures that are reported from committee typically receive formal committee reports, those regular appropriations measures that are not reported from committee are often associated with draft committee report text that is released in the context of negotiations to resolve differences. Because the written committee report is a product of that committee's deliberations rather than a legislative measure itself, it is not directly amendable during the subsequent floor consideration of the appropriations measure. However, floor amendments have previously been offered that would have the effect of directly or indirectly overriding the directives or funding allocations in the committee report language. For example, during the 109th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee report for the FY2007 Agriculture appropriations bill contained a provision that allocated "$229,000 for dairy education in Iowa" (H.Rept. 109-463, p. 56). Subsequently, an amendment was offered on the House floor that proposed to insert the provision, "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to fund dairy education in Iowa." Had that amendment become law as part of the appropriations act, it would have prevented the $229,000 in funds set aside in the committee report from being spent on that particular activity. Resolving Differences When congressional negotiators resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of an appropriations measure, such negotiators are usually drawn from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition to producing a final version of the measure, these negotiators also agree to further report language in the form of a JES or other explanatory text. In instances where explanatory text is entered into the Congressional Record, a provision of the measure usually indicates that it is to be treated by the agencies in the same way as a joint explanatory statement. This explanatory text is usually considered to be the most authoritative source of congressional legislative 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 language. The explanatory text may be used to reconcile any differences between the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports. For example, the House and Senate committee report language may address certain issues in ways that are difficult to reconcile harmoniously. In these types of 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 to which the other committee's report is silent. If disagreement exists between the committees with regard to this report language, the explanatory statement might clarify what action the agency should take. On the other hand, if the original committee language is ultimately acceptable to both committees, the explanatory statement might be silent due to an expectation that the agency will follow the original directive. As a consequence, in addition to the explanatory text, the committee reports 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 based on a formula have typically not been accompanied by report language, even when such appropriations are for an entire fiscal year. For example, for the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6), which contained both regular and full-year continuing appropriations, detailed explanatory text was provided only for the accounts that received regular appropriations. 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. However, the extent to which the funding provided via the CR's formula is difficult to reconcile with the allocations and directives in the relevant committee reports—and the extent to which those committee allocations and directives conflict with one another because there is no relevant explanatory text to resolve such conflicts—may limit the report's applicability. Appropriations Report Language Components As previously stated, the components of report language that are specific to appropriations measures have evolved in the context of both internal and external congressional needs. In many cases, the components and related practices were developed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to better enable their oversight of the agencies. In other cases, the components came about as a result of chamber rules to require information to facilitate congressional consideration of appropriations measures. This has led to the development of certain categories of report language that are used in many or all of the appropriations committee reports each fiscal year and, in some cases, the JES that resolves differences between those reports. This section describes the origin, purposes, and current forms of these report language components. Overview of Accounts and Other Directives The bulk of the House and Senate reports on appropriations bills are devoted to an overview of each account in the bill. This derives from the general practice that reports accompanying legislation summarize each section or title of the measure, which is often referred to as a "section-by-section" (or "title-by-title") summary. Because appropriations bills are organized by unnumbered headings, with each heading generally corresponding to an account, section-by-section summaries of the appropriations bills are organized by account and also include a short description of other provisions included in the bill that are not part of the appropriations accounts. Such provisions include "administrative provisions" that are specific to particular accounts or agencies, as well as "general provisions" that are more broadly applicable to all funds in the bill (or a specified title of the bill). The account-by-account summary is intended primarily to explain the purpose of the account and what it funds. It is typically framed as a justification of the funding levels proposed for that account compared to those provided the previous fiscal year, as well as those proposed in the President's budget request. Senate Appropriations Committee reports also compare proposed levels to those that were proposed by the House Appropriations Committee, if applicable. These committee justifications of recommended funding levels can provide helpful context for Members as they evaluate the measure and potential floor amendments. The account summaries in the reports also give the appropriations committees the opportunity to provide additional directives to the agencies funded therein and guidance concerning congressional intent for their use of funds. This guidance varies in intensity—from encouragement or support for a specified action to concerns and requirements for an agency to engage in or refrain from particular actions. Three examples, from the House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bill (H.Rept. 113-468), are illustrative. In the first example, which applies to the Agricultural Programs—Office of Inspector General (OIG) account, the committee indicates support of action that is currently being undertaken: The Committee appreciates OIG's continued efforts to raise public awareness of successful Federal investigations of fraud. Such efforts are intended to deter participants from engaging in the misuse of taxpayer dollars and to maintain a high level of integrity in all of USDA's programs. The Committee encourages OIG to continue its efforts to work with all of USDA's agencies to deter fraud, waste, and abuse in the Department's programs. (p. 9) In the second example, which applies to the Agricultural Programs—Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services account, the committee requires that a specific action be taken: The Committee is concerned about waste, fraud, and abuse in programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Therefore, the Secretary is directed to certify that any newly approved payment, loan, grant, subsidy, or insurance claim from a program administered by FSA or RMA does not include individuals or entities that have been permanently debarred from participating in USDA programs. (p. 28) In the third example, which applies to the Agricultural Programs—Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, the committee directs the agency to refrain from taking an action until certain conditions are met: The Committee is concerned about the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research created by the 2014 farm bill and reports that the Department intends to obligate $200,000,000 in mandatory funds to the Foundation by the end of the fiscal year but before the Foundation has been established and any matching funds have been received as required by law. The Committee directs USDA not to expend any funds except those related to the appointment of members of the board and the preparation of by-laws, conflict of interest policies, and standards of conduct until the Committee receives and approves these documents. The Committee directs USDA to report to it no later than January 1, 2015. (p. 11) In many instances, additional directives to agencies in report language also include more detail on the allocation of funds than what is provided in the bill itself. For example, the FY2015 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill included an account for Departmental Management and Operations—Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. In the Senate Appropriations Committee–reported version of the measure (S. 2534), a lump sum of $124,571,000 was provided for the entire account with no further allocation of the funds in the statute (except for a limitation on official reception and representation expenses). However, the accompanying committee report divided the amount in that account into specific allocations for certain purposes: Figure 1.: Detailed Funds Allocation Source: S.Rept. 113-198, p. 12. Even though funding and other directives (such as these additional allocations illustrated above) that are only in report language are not legally binding, the Appropriations Committees expect that the agencies will adhere to them. 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. These tables assist with the congressional evaluation of the amounts in the bill, as well as some of the additional allocations of those amounts in the report. In current practice, the specific categories of information displayed and compared in the summary table depend on the chamber and stage of action but may include amounts for: the prior fiscal year, the President's budget request (or "budget estimate"), the other chamber ("allowance"), and the committee recommendation. The JES will list the final funding levels for the relevant accounts and other activities that were agreed to when differences were resolved on the measure. The example below is from the Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying the FY2015 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill (S.Rept. 113-174, p. 109). It includes all of the categories of information listed above. Figure 2: Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority Source: S.Rept. 113-174, p. 109. General Directives Related to Budget Preparation and Budget Execution In addition to the instructions that are included in the account summaries, general directives that apply to budget preparation and budget execution are often also included in appropriations report language. Such directives, which typically relate to many or all of the accounts in the bill, are usually in the first pages of the report and may specify the form of budget justifications for future fiscal years, other reporting guidelines and committee initiatives, "program, project, or activity" (PPA) definitions, and reprogramming guidelines. Form of Budget Justifications 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. The description of budgetary accounts in these budget justifications, such as the types of agency activities conducted with funds in the account, is much more detailed than the budget submission. This additional information helps the appropriations committees better evaluate the budgetary resources that have been requested for the upcoming fiscal year. The form of the budget justifications and the information contained therein is generally the result of consultations between the agency and appropriations committees. Instructions from the appropriations committees as to the content of budget justifications for future fiscal years, however, are also often included in report language. These instructions may include the level of detail that should be provided for each account, as well as specific directions for certain programs or activities. 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. An agency might also be more generally directed to coordinate the content of certain analytical materials with the committee in advance of the submission. For example, the Senate committee report that accompanied the FY2015 State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill included the following directives (S.Rept. 113-195): Timely budget information in the congressional budget justification [CBJ] that is clearly, concisely, and accurately presented must be a priority of the administration. The Committee expects the Department of State, USAID, and other agencies funded by this act to submit CBJs within 4 weeks of the release of the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request. The Committee also directs the Department of State, USAID, and other agencies to include detailed information on all reimbursable agreements.... The Committee directs that CBJs include estimated savings from any proposed office or mission closing and actual prior year representation expenses for each department and agency that is authorized such expenses. (p. 9) Other Reporting Guidelines and Committee Initiatives Although reporting requirements that are 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 Senate Appropriations Committee report that accompanied the FY2015 Agriculture appropriations bill included the following instructions related to agency reports (S.Rept. 113-164): The Committee has, throughout this report, requested agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The Committee directs that all studies and reports be provided to the Committee as electronic documents in an agreed upon format within 120 days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative submission schedule is specifically stated in the report request. (p. 6) "Program, Project, or Activity" Definitions A PPA is an element in a budget account. As was previously mentioned, 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). For example, the House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the FY2015 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill identified four PPAs in the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Automation Modernization account, which funds information technology support for CBP personnel (H.Rept. 113-481, p. 43): information technology, automated targeting systems, the Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System, and current operations protection and processing support. As with other funding allocations in report language, the PPAs that are identified for each account allow Congress to provide direction as to the amounts to be expended for particular activities in which the agency is engaged. The PPAs are also significant for "reprogramming," which is discussed further in the report section entitled "Reprogramming Guidelines." The PPAs that are identified for each account are also significant for the sequestration budget enforcement mechanism under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA; P.L. 99-177). If such a sequestration is required for a fiscal year, budgetary resources for affected accounts must be reduced on a largely across-the-board basis. The BBEDCA further requires that these reductions must be proportionately implemented by the agencies, within each affected account, at the PPA level. Starting in FY1987, the first full fiscal year after the sequestration mechanism was in effect for discretionary spending, some House Appropriations Committee reports included PPA definitions for the purposes of the BBEDCA. PPA definitions have continued to be included in appropriations reports during the periods since FY1987, during which sequestration could potentially affect discretionary spending. Such report language might be used to clarify what a PPA is for the purposes of the BBEDCA or impose a different definition of PPA than would otherwise be in effect. For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying the FY2014 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill provided the following instructions (S.Rept. 113-80): During fiscal year 2014, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1