A basic principle underlying the congressional budget process is the separation between money and policy decisions. One means through which this division of labor has been observed is through congressional rules and practices that distinguish between provisions that establish the activities of government, and those that fund those activities—"authorizations" and "appropriations," respectively. An authorization generally provides legal authority for the government to act, usually by establishing, continuing, or restricting a federal agency, program, policy, project, or activity. It may also, explicitly or implicitly, authorize subsequent congressional action to provide appropriations for those purposes. By itself, however, an authorization does not provide funding for government activities. An appropriation generally provides both the legal authority to obligate future payments from the Treasury, and the ability to make subsequent payments to satisfy those obligations. Since the adoption of a formal rule in the House in 1835, the distinction between authorizations and appropriations has been based on limiting the provisions of appropriations measures to funding those programs or activities previously established by law. The form in which those programs or activities are established, however, is not prescribed by House or Senate rules or practices so that the language and specificity of such provisions as varied greatly over time. During the nineteenth century, authorizations generally were used for the initial establishment of programs, while control over the details of particular activities and amounts was achieved through the annual appropriations process. Authorization laws were enacted on a permanent basis to provide broad grants of authority to government departments and agencies. In these laws, the authorization of subsequent congressional action to provide appropriations was implied and did not include specific amounts to be appropriated. That is, the general authorization in these laws included both the legal authority to act, as well as the authority under congressional rules to appropriate funds for such activities. Temporary authorizations were rare and were generally reserved for programs that were intended to be of a limited duration. In contrast, annually enacted appropriations laws contained the details as to what agencies were able to do and how much they would have to spend. Developments in the House and Senate committee systems that occurred during this same period also served to strengthen this authorization-appropriations distinction. From the earliest Congresses the "legislative committees" had jurisdiction over authorization measures while the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee were responsible for most appropriations bills. During the Civil War, however, when the workload of these committees and size of federal expenditures increased considerably, both chambers chose to create separate Appropriations Committees that would be responsible for the annual appropriations measures. As the size and scope of federal government activities increased during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the congressional practices related to authorizations and appropriations began to change. Authorization laws began to specify the details of broad classes of federal government programs and activities in consolidated legislation, instead of in multiple pieces of stand-alone legislation that addressed only some aspects of such programs and activities. At about the same time, appropriations, which used to be almost entirely comprised of specific line-items, shifted to more general lump-sums for purposes that were usually identified simply by referencing the statutory authorization. In other words, appropriations began to rely on the authorization statutes to specify and limit how the funds would be used. Although jurisdiction over some appropriations was dispersed during the late nineteenth century, Congress continued to keep appropriations separate and distinct from authorizations. The reconsolidation of appropriations jurisdiction, and the reorganization of regular annual appropriations bills in the House in 1920 (and in the Senate in 1922), also reinforced this distinction. The choice to separate money and policy decisions and vest control over them in different congressional committees has meant long-standing tensions between the authorization and appropriations processes. In term of both what the Federal government should do and at what level its activities should be funded, these tensions have significantly influenced how the processes have evolved, as each attempts to exercise a greater role in congressional and agency funding decisions. In the early twentieth century, as a consequence of the changes that were discussed in the previous paragraph, the legislative committees began to assert their role in fiscal decision-making through two particular mechanisms. First, these committees began to include provisions that explicitly authorized appropriations in authorization acts, such as language that "hereby authorized to be appropriated" for certain purposes. Second, associated with these provisions, these committees began to conduct reviews and enact revisions to authorization laws for certain agencies and departments on periodic schedules, instead of on an as-needed basis. This report discusses general principles in how the language concerning the purposes and frequency of authorizations of appropriations has changed over the past century. These general principles are illustrated through case studies on the authorizations of appropriations that were enacted during this period for three agencies: the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Peace Corps. Coincident with the enactment of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, jurisdiction over general appropriations increased the role of the Appropriations Committees in congressional decisions about spending. In response, the legislative committees began to explore new legislative language that would influence budgetary outcomes, both with respect to the action of the appropriators, and also in their oversight of the agencies under their jurisdiction. This resulted in significant changes in the content and timing of authorization laws over the next several decades. The first significant change in the form of authorization laws occurred after the 1920s, when authorization laws began to include provisions that explicitly "authorized to be appropriated" future budgetary resources tied to certain purposes. By one estimate, this practice grew so rapidly that in 1937, there were more than 100 measures enacted into law with explicit authorizations of appropriations for definite amounts. At a minimum, such provisions were a recommendation of the legislative committees as to the level of future appropriations. This practice, however, had broader implications for the role of the legislative committees in budgetary decision-making because existing House and Senate rules that prohibited appropriations not authorized by law had to be applied in new ways. Although these prohibitions were longstanding, having been first adopted during the previous century, authorization provisions that established an entity, project, or activity were considered to be sufficient to implicitly authorize subsequent appropriations under the terms of these rules. However, when the legislative committees started to include explicit provisions authorizing appropriations, this effectively enabled them to create procedural ceilings on subsequent appropriations, and thus exert greater influence over subsequent funding decisions. As language specifically authorizing appropriations was increasingly used, various practices started to emerge. First, the legislative committees began to authorize definite amounts to be appropriated for specific fiscal years. In their early use, such provisions were typically tied to minor or temporary programs. Second, because provisions that limited the amount or duration of future appropriations were considered to be inappropriate for permanent or large-scale government programs, provisions authorizing appropriations for "such sums as are necessary" were typically used for such programs. These provisions were also used to address multiple programs under the auspices of a single agency. At the end of WWII, an estimated 5% of programs, excluding one-time projects, had explicit authorizations of appropriations that applied to specific fiscal years. Over the postwar period, however, as the legislative committees continued to increase their use of such provisions, they began to apply such provisions to programs of a more large-scale or permanent nature. The types of provisions periodically authorizing appropriations that were developed during this period have continued to be used through the present day. These provisions generally indicate two schedules of legislative review: "annual" and "multiyear." Annual authorizations of appropriations explicitly authorize appropriations for a single fiscal year. Multiyear authorizations of appropriations explicitly authorize appropriations for more than one fiscal year at a time (typically between two and five). As the legislative committees began to experiment with provisions authorizing appropriations for a single fiscal year, one motivation was to better oversee and influence agency spending decisions. Annual authorizations of appropriations were first applied to newly created agencies or programs, in part, because these annual provisions were believed to encourage close review and oversight early in an agency or program's development. Later, in response to perceived issues with existing agencies or the congressional oversight of them, legislative committees sometimes added annual authorization provisions to the underlying statute governing these agencies, thereby converting them to an annual reauthorization schedule. For example, annual authorizations were used in some instances for programs or agencies that were undergoing "rapidly changing conditions," giving the legislative committees the opportunity to weigh in on a frequent basis. Programs that had a direct effect on states or districts, such as those that govern military construction or grants, also were candidates for annual authorizations. Legislative committees often sought close oversight of such programs because of the constituency issues involved and a desire to address any problems as they arose. As a consequence of this frequent legislative attention, agencies subject to annual reauthorization tended to experience more incremental program changes in their authorizing laws when compared to those agencies on a longer reauthorization schedule. Another motivation for the legislative committees to choose annual authorization schedules during the post-World War II period was dissatisfaction with the funding levels or program structure as provided through the congressional appropriations process. At this time, the authorization laws that were enacted on an as-needed basis tended to be primarily focused on policy issues, and not budgetary decision-making. In addition, any authorized levels for future fiscal years might have been considered to be less relevant when it came time to appropriate due to changing congressional priorities. Under an annual authorization approach, however, the congressional debate over the funding levels in the context of the authorization for that fiscal year would occur more immediately ahead of the consideration of appropriations for those programs. This sequence and timing of events—authorizations are to precede appropriations—was believed to provide the legislative committees with greater leverage to prevent their framework and authorized funding levels from being disregarded during subsequent appropriations decision-making. The proportion of agencies that were subject to annual reauthorizations expanded significantly during the mid-twentieth century.