The Appropriations Process in Congress: Politics and Procedure

Session Submission Type: Full Submitted Panel

Session Description

The power of the purse is a primary way that Congress exercises its constitutional authority. Members of Congress set spending priorities, oversee federal programs and pursue key policy and electoral goals through the annual effort to adopt the dozen annual appropriations bills. Scholars have studied appropriations for decades to gain vital insights into Congress and its members.
The appropriations process has changed significantly in recent decades. Rising polarization and other changes in the chambers have placed pressure on longstanding appropriations norms such as non-partisanship, universalism, and deference to senior members. Rank-and-file members have become more assertive during floor debate, and amending activity has increased. Substantive debate on spending appears to have declined as House leaders have reconsidered their traditional use of open rules to manage debates on the floor and Senate leaders have opted to avoid bringing bills to the floor altogether. Earmarking funds for home districts, once considered to be a sacrosanct prerogative of both parties, was banned in 2011.
This panel investigates the evolution of appropriations with the aim of carefully assessing these changes and drawing on them to understand broader trends in Congress. Molly Reynolds (Brookings Institution) explores the rise in amending activity on House appropriations bills and analyzes whether the decline in amending opportunities on non-appropriations legislation has changed the kind of amendments members propose to spending bills. Peter Hanson (Grinnell College) and Lee Drutman (New America) also consider House amending practices, leveraging the tradition of open rules in House appropriations to assess the feasibility and consequence of a return to “regular order” for other categories of legislation. Nicole Kalaf-Hughes (Bowling Green State University), Jason MacDonald (West Virginia University), and Russell Mills (Bowling Green State University) examine how federal spending priorities have changed in the wake of the 2011 earmark ban.
Together, these papers offer a nuanced look at the current state of appropriations. It is common to state that the appropriations process is “dysfunctional” or that debates over spending bills are now strictly partisan. As these papers show, appropriations defies easy labels. Strong, non-partisan norms endure in appropriations. Open rules remain common, if increasingly tenuous. Deliberative, bipartisan policy debates and lawmaking continue to occur on spending bills even as partisan gamesmanship has increased.

Sub Unit

• DIVISION 22: LEGISLATIVE STUDIES

Chair

• Daniel Blyth Magleby Binghamton University

Discussant

• Gregory Koger University of Miami

Individual Presentations

• Does Regular Order Produce More Deliberation? Evidence from Appropriations Bills - Peter Hanson, Grinnell College; Lee Drutman, New America

• Who Builds the Party Brand? The Politics of House Appropriations Amendments - Molly Reynolds, Brookings Institution

• Congressional Priorities and Federal Spending before and after the Earmark Ban - Jason A. MacDonald, West Virginia University; Nicole Kalaf-Hughes, Bowling Green State University; Russell W. Mills, Bowling Green State University

• The Hyde Amendment and the Modern Congressional Appropriations Process - Scott A. Frisch, California State University, Channel Islands; Sean Q Kelly, California State University, Channel Islands