Section 5 Content

With the 302a allocations determined, the funding process moves to the appropriations committees in each chamber. Long considered one of the most powerful and prestigious committees on which to serve, Appropriations is responsible for determining program-by-program funding levels. This is done through 12 separate appropriations bills, each generated by a specific subcommittee, covering individual federal agencies or groupings of agencies. For example, the bill that covers traditional student financial aid and National Institute of Health funding is the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education and Related Agencies appropriations bill, and it covers the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and a handful of small agencies such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.



The chairs of the appropriations subcommittees, under direction of the appropriations committee chairperson, divide the 302a allocation among the 12 subcommittees. This allocation provides the total funding pool for each of the appropriations bills, known as the "302b allocation." In simple terms, the 302a allocation represents the size of the whole funding pie, while the 302b allocation is equivalent to the size of one of the 12 slices of that pie.



Armed with their 302b allocation, the various subcommittees then divide that funding level among the programs under their authority. This process is accompanied by multiple activities. The most visible are public hearings by the subcommittees, where they invite the secretaries of the various agencies to testify on their budget requests. Simultaneously, legislators and their staff from outside the subcommittees submit requests for funding levels they would like to see, expressing their support for programs. Finally, committee staffers often meet with advocates of the programs to discuss the funding outlook.



The subcommittee staff then produces an appropriations bill that is brought to the full subcommittee for a vote. While it is possible to amend a bill in subcommittee, it is not common. If it passes, the bill is then taken up by the full committee, often with several amendments to the underlying bill.



This process works in identical fashion in both the House and Senate. It is not uncommon for the two chambers to have different 302a’s and 302b’s, with the resulting versions of the bill millions or billions of dollars apart. Even when the chambers work from similar allocation levels, differences often occur between the total funding levels for the many programs in each bill.



In addition, it has become increasingly common for appropriations bills to include policy changes, or “riders.” A common rider is language prohibiting an agency from using any of the funds included in the bill to perform a certain action that legislators oppose. Other riders may make policy changes in order to lower the overall cost of a program, such as changes to Pell Grant eligibility made to close a projected funding shortfall. These riders may vary significantly between the chambers, adding further complication to the process of passing a unified bill.

All appropriations bills are supposed to be passed in “regular order,” meaning full passage of all 12 bills through both chambers and which are then signed by the president by the start of the federal fiscal year on October​ 1. Failure to provide appropriations by that date would result in a nearly complete shutdown of federal operations. While uncommon, the government did shut down for 16 days in 2013, and the threat of a shutdown has occurred numerous times in recent years.



Over the last few years, few if any of the appropriations bills passed in regular order, even those enjoying wide bipartisan support such as the Defense and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bills. Instead, Congress often enacts a series of continuing resolutions (CRs), which are short-term spending bills that typically maintain funding levels at the previous year’s levels.



CRs can last for as little as a day but usually are for a number of weeks or months, and are renewed when negotiations extend beyond the new deadline. CRs also can contain policy provisions and revisions to funding levels. For example, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Program had its funding eliminated in the first of several CRs addressing FY 2012 appropriations.



With so many bills and areas of possible disagreement between the House and Senate, it is not surprising that Congress has difficulty passing each appropriations bill in regular order. As the fiscal year ends, leadership in both chambers will often negotiate on passing all the bills together in one combined package, known as an omnibus bill. On certain occasions, where less controversial bills have been passed into law, a package of the remaining appropriations bills will be bundled to finish funding work, and this package is known colloquially as a “minibus.” The omnibus approach allows for greater range of negotiation than any individual bill would and also makes a possible presidential veto over a particular issue less likely.



Regardless of the final form the appropriations bills take, the last step in enacting program funding consists of the president signing the bills. As with more traditional legislation, the president has the authority to veto appropriations bills, and Congress can then attempt to override the veto. A two-thirds vote is required in both chambers to overturn a veto.