< Back to Current Version

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

Changes from October 5, 2004 to April 27, 2005

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


Order Code RL32473 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices Updated October 5, 2004April 27, 2005 Robert Keith Specialist in American National Government Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜{ The Library of Congress Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices Summary Omnibus appropriations acts have become a significant feature of the legislative process in recent years as Congress and the President have used them more frequently to bring action on the regular appropriations cycle to a close. Following a discussion of pertinent background information, this report reviews the recent enactment of such measures and briefly addresses several issues raised by their use. For nearly two centuries, regular appropriations acts were considered by the House and Senate as individual measures and enacted into law as freestanding laws. In 1950, the House and Senate undertook a one-time experiment in improving legislative efficiency by considering all of the regular appropriations acts for FY1951 in a single bill, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950. The following year, the House and Senate returned to the practice of considering the regular appropriations acts individually. During the period covering FY1986-FY2004FY2005, a total of 247260 regular appropriations acts were considered. All but one of these acts were enacted into law either individually or as part of an omnibus measure. Of the 246259 measures enacted into law, 166 (67170 (66%) were enacted as freestanding measures and 80 (3389 (34%) were enacted in omnibus legislation. On average, aboutless than nine (8.75) regular appropriations appropriations acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures and more than four (4.25) were enacted into law in omnibus legislation each year. During this period, 1112 different omnibus measures were enacted into law for 1011 different fiscal years (two separate omnibus appropriations acts were enacted for FY2001). Each of the measures funded between two and 13 of the regular appropriations acts, on average funding about seven of them. SevenEight of the omnibus measures were bills or joint resolutions carrying the designation “consolidated” appropriations or “omnibus consolidated” appropriations in the title; three were continuing appropriations acts; and one was the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for FY2001, which also included the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2001. In addition to the customary concern — of sacrificing the opportunity for debate and amendment for greater legislative efficiency — that arises whenever complex legislation is considered under time constraints, the use of omnibus appropriations acts has generated controversy for other reasons. These include whether adequate consideration was given to regular appropriations acts prior to their incorporation into omnibus appropriations legislation, the use of across-the-board spending cuts, and the inclusion of significant legislative (rather than funding) provisions. This report will be updated as warranted. Contents Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Selected Issues in the Use of Omnibus Appropriations Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Prior Consideration of Regular Appropriations Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Across-the-Board Spending Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Inclusion of Legislative Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 List of Tables Table 1. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 2. Detail on Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . 7 Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices Omnibus appropriations acts have become a significant feature of the legislative process in recent years as Congress and the President have resorted more frequently to their use to bring action on the regular appropriations cycle to a close. Following a discussion of pertinent background information, this report reviews the recent use of such measures and briefly addresses several issues that their use raises. Background Each year, Congress and the President enact discretionary spending1 in the form of regular appropriations acts, as well as continuing and supplemental appropriations acts.2 The number of regular appropriations acts hashad been fixed at 13 for several decades, but a realignment of the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees at the beginning of the 109th Congress is expected to result in two or three fewer regular appropriations acts each year. If action is not completed on all of the regular appropriations acts toward the end of a congressional session, Congress sometimes will combine the unfinished appropriations acts into an omnibus measure. An omnibus act may set forth the full text of each of the regular appropriations acts included therein, or it may enact them individually by cross-reference. The House and Senate consider annual appropriations acts, and other budgetary legislation, within constraints established in a yearly budget resolution required by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. Budget resolution policies are enforced by points of order that may be raised during House and Senate consideration of spending, revenue, and debt-limit legislation.3 On occasion, budget policies may be modified by agreements reached between congressional leaders and the President; such modifications may be accommodated during legislative action through the use of waivers of points of order, emergency spending designations, and other budgetary or procedural devices. During the period covering FY1991-FY2002, legislative action on annual appropriations acts also was subject to limits on discretionary spending established 1 Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of total federal spending, is spending that is under the control of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. For the most part, discretionary spending funds the routine operations of the federal government. It is distinguished from direct spending, which is controlled by the legislative committees in substantive law and funds such mandatory programs as Social Security and Medicare. Discretionary spending and direct spending together make up total federal spending. 2 For background on the appropriations process, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter. 3 For a general discussion of budget enforcement procedures, see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by Robert Keith and Allen Schick. CRS-2 During the period covering FY1991-FY2002, legislative action on annual appropriations acts also was subject to limits on discretionary spending established by the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990, as amended. Under this statutory mechanism, separate discretionary spending limits were applied to two different measurements of spending — budget authority and outlays. The discretionary spending limits were enforced by the sequestration process, which involved automatic, largely across-the-board reductions in discretionary spending in order to eliminate any breach of the limits.4 For nearly two centuries, regular appropriations acts were considered by the House and Senate as individual measures and enacted into law by the President as freestanding laws. In 1950, the House and Senate undertook a one-time experiment in improving legislative efficiency by considering all of the regular appropriations acts for FY1951 in a single bill, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950 (81st Congress, P.L. 759, September 6, 1950).5 The following year, the House and Senate returned to the practice of considering the regular appropriations acts individually. In the late 1970s and continuing into the 1980s, continuing appropriations acts sometimes took the form of omnibus legislation, incorporating the full text of multiple regular appropriations acts for full-year funding instead of providing shortterm funding by formula.6 In recent years, the House and Senate on several occasions have combined multiple regular appropriations acts into “consolidated” appropriations measures, sometimes enacting individual bills by cross-reference. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004FY2005 During the 20-year period covering FY1986-FY2004, 11FY2005, 12 different omnibus measures measures were enacted into law for 1011 different fiscal years (two separate omnibus appropriations acts were enacted for FY2001). Each of the measures funded between two and 13 of the regular appropriations acts, on average funding about seven of them. SevenEight of the omnibus measures were bills or joint resolutions carrying the designation “consolidated” appropriations or “omnibus consolidated” appropriations in the title; three were continuing appropriations acts; and one was the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for FY2001, which also included the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2001 (see Table 1, and, at the end of the report, Table 2). 4 The sequestration process is discussed in detail in CRS Report RL31137, Sequestration Procedures Under the 1985 Balanced Budget Act, by Robert Keith. 5 See “The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950,” by Dalmus H. Nelson, Journal of Politics, vol. 15, no. 2, May 1953. 6 For more information on practices relating to the use of continuing appropriations acts, see CRS Report RL32614, Duration of Continuing Resolutions in Recent Years, by Robert Keith. CRS-3 P.L. 106-553 was enacted as an omnibus measure enacting the CommerceJustice-State-Judiciary Appropriations Act for FY2001 and the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2001 by cross-reference. However, the provision dealing with District of Columbia appropriations was repealed; therefore, P.L. 106-553 is not counted in this memorandum as an omnibus measure. 4 The sequestration process is discussed in detail in CRS Report RL31137, Sequestration Procedures Under the 1985 Balanced Budget Act, by Robert Keith. 5 See “The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950,” by Dalmus H. Nelson, Journal of Politics, vol. 15, no. 2, May 1953. CRS-3 report as an omnibus measure. Table 1. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004FY2005 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1986 (P.L. 99-190; December 19, 1985) Continuing Appropriations Act, 1987 (P.L. 99-500; October 18, 1986) Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1988 (P.L. 100-202; December 22, 1987) Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134; April 26, 1996) Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208; September 30, 1996) Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277; October 21, 1998) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113; November 29, 1999) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-554; December 21, 2000) VA-HUD Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-377; October 27, 2000) Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7; February 20, 2003) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199; January 23, 2004) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447; December 8, 2004) During this period, a total of 247260 regular appropriations acts were considered. All but one of these acts were enacted into law either individually or as part of an omnibus measure.67 Of the 246259 measures enacted into law, 166 (67170 (66%) were enacted as freestanding measures and 80 (3389 (34%) were enacted in omnibus legislation. On average, about nine (8.7less than nine (8.5) regular appropriations acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures and and more than four (4.25) were enacted into law in omnibus legislation each year. 7 The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY1992 was not enacted into law. Funding for activities covered by this act was provided in a series of continuing resolutions, culminating with the enactment of P.L. 102-266 on Apr. 1, 1992. CRS-4 Fifty-eight Fifty-seven (23%) of the 246259 regular appropriations acts were enacted into law on or before October 1, the start of the fiscal year. Six of these measures were included in an omnibus measure (for FY1997) and the rest were enacted as freestanding measures. On average during this period, three regular appropriations about three (2.9) regular appropriations acts were enacted annually before the start of the fiscal year. 6 The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for FY1992 was not enacted into law. Funding for activities covered by this act was provided in a series of continuing resolutions, culminating with the enactment of P.L. 102-266 on Apr. 1, 1992. CRS-4 Five of the seven Six of the eight omnibus appropriations acts bearing the designation “consolidated” or “omnibus consolidated” in their title originated in the House as a regular appropriations act and were expanded in coverage (and their titles redesignated) at the conference stage. These included the appropriations acts for ! ! ! ! ! ! Defense (H.R. 3610) in FY1997; Transportation (H.R. 4238) in FY1999; District of Columbia (H.R. 3194) in FY2000; Labor-HHS-Education (H.R. 4577) in FY2001; and Agriculture (H.R. 2673) in FY2004; and Foreign Operations (H.R. 4818) in FY2005. The acts for FY2000 and FY2001 enacted regular appropriations measures by cross-reference instead of including their full text (except for FY2000 appropriations for the District of Columbia).78 In FY2003, the omnibus measure originated in the House as a simple continuing resolution (H.J.Res. 2), but was expanded in coverage and redesignated during Senate floor action. The remaining measure, for FY1996 (H.R. 3019), originated as an omnibus measure and retained this status throughout its consideration. Selected Issues in the Use of Omnibus Appropriations Acts Several issues pertaining to the use of omnibus appropriations have been the focus of debate in recent years, including the extent to which the regular appropriations acts have received consideration prior to being incorporated into omnibus legislation, the use of across-the-board spending cuts, and the inclusion of legislative provisions. Prior Consideration of Regular Appropriations Acts. One of the chief concerns regarding the use of omnibus appropriations acts is that it reduces the opportunities Members have to debate and amend the regular appropriations acts that are incorporated therein. This concern may be lessened if the regular appropriations acts eventually incorporated into omnibus legislation are first considered individually. Data collected for the FY1986-FY2004 period show that the Senate is more likely than the House not to have given prior consideration to regular appropriations acts. The House did not initially consider or pass 16 of the 80 regular appropriations acts subsequently included in omnibus legislation. These most often included regular appropriations acts for Foreign Operations (four times), Labor-HHS-Education (three times), and Agriculture and Defense (two times each). 7 8 For additional information on the legislative history and structure of recent omnibus appropriations acts, see (1) CRS Report RS20403, FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith; (2) CRS Report RS20756, FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith (archived; available from author); (3) CRS Report RS21433, FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith; and (4) CRS Report RS21684, FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith. CRS-5 During the same period, the Senate did not initially consider or pass 32 of the 80 regular appropriations acts subsequently included in omnibus legislation. Seven of the 32 measures not initially passed by the Senate were considered on the floor, while 25 were not. All 32 of these measures were reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. In addition to the 32 acts that were not initially passed by the Senate, several other acts that the Senate initially passed were not sent to conference. The regular appropriations acts most often included in omnibus legislation without initial consideration or passage in the Senate were for Foreign Operations, Interior, Labor-HHS-Education, and Treasury-Postal (four times each) Appropriations Act: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith; and (5) CRS Report RS21983, FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith. CRS-5 acts eventually incorporated into omnibus legislation are first considered individually. Data collected for the FY1986-FY2005 period show that the Senate is more likely than the House not to have given prior consideration to regular appropriations acts. The House did not initially consider, or considered but did not pass, 17 of the 89 regular appropriations acts subsequently included in omnibus legislation. These most often included regular appropriations acts for Foreign Operations (four times), Labor-HHS-Education (three times), and Agriculture and Defense (two times each). During the same period, the Senate did not initially consider, or considered but did not pass, 39 of the 89 regular appropriations acts subsequently included in omnibus legislation. Seven of the 39 measures not initially passed by the Senate were considered on the floor, while 32 were not (all 32 of these measures were reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee). The regular appropriations acts most often included in omnibus legislation without either initial consideration or passage in the Senate were for (1) Commerce, Justice, (2) Interior, and (3) LaborHHS-Education, at five times each. Two regular appropriations acts — Legislative Branch and Military Construction — were included in omnibus appropriations acts during this period (five times and two times, respectively), but not without having first been considered by the Senate in each instance. Across-the-Board Spending Cuts. In order to adhere to restraints imposed by congressional budget resolutions, the discretionary spending limits, and ad hoc budget agreements between congressional leaders and the President, or to meet other purposes, Congress and the President from time to time incorporate across-the-board cuts in discretionary budget authority into annual appropriations acts.89 During the last fivesix fiscal years, FY2000-FY2004, fourFY2005, five government-wide, across-the-board spending cuts were included in omnibus appropriations acts. The cuts ranged in size from 0.22% to 0.6580% of covered appropriations, and an estimated $1.1 billion to $2.8 3.5 billion in savings: ! the 0.38% cut for FY2000 in P.L. 106-113 saved an estimated $2.4 billion in budget ! ! ! ! budget authority; ! the 0.22% cut for FY2001 in P.L. 106-554 saved an estimated $1.1 billion in budget budget authority; ! the 0.65% cut for FY2003 in P.L. 108-7 saved an estimated $2.6 billion in budget authority; and ! the 0.59% cut for FY2004 in P.L. 108-199 saved an estimated $2.8 billion in budget authority. budget authority; and the 0.80% cut for FY2005 in P.L. 108-447 saved an estimated $3.5 billion in budget authority. The 0.59% across-the-board cut in nondefense programs for FY2004 in P.L. 108-199 was accompanied by a requirement that defense appropriations, which were exempt from the 0.59% cut, be reduced by a fixed amount ($1.8 billion). This 9 This topic is discussed in more detail in CRS Report RL32153, Across-the-Board Spending Cuts in Omnibus Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith. CRS-6 requirement was repealed by Section 9003(c) of the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2005, which President Bush signed into law on August 5, 2004, as P.L. 108-287 (118 Stat. 951 et. seq.). In addition, P.L. 108-199 included two other requirements for much smaller Omnibus appropriations acts sometimes include other across-the-board spending cuts that apply to individual appropriations acts, as set forth in separate divisions of the omnibus legislation. P.L. 108-199, for example, included two other requirements for much smaller uniform spending cuts in nondefense programs: (1) a 0.465% uniform cut on funding cut in funding in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations portion of the measure, expected to yield division, estimated to yield $188.7 million in savings; and (2) a “pro rata” cut of $50 million in administrative expenses for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Education. Further, P.L. 108-447 included three other provisions requiring across-the-board spending cuts focused on particular divisions of the act: (1) a 0.54% cut in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations division, estimated to save $229 million; (2) a 0.594% cut in the Interior Appropriations division, estimated to save $120 million; and (3) a cut of $18 million in the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations division, applicable to administrative and related expenses for departmental management (except for the Food and Drug Administration and the Indian Health Service). The significance of the spending cuts differed with regard to budget enforcement. The FY2000 cut was an integral component of the plan that successfully avoided a sequester at the end of the session. The FY2001 cut 8 This topic is discussed in more detail in CRS Report RL32153, Across-the-Board Spending Cuts in Omnibus Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith. CRS-6 contributed to overall discretionary spending being below the statutory limits, but the across-the-board cut proved to be unnecessary in avoiding a sequester. With regard to the FY2003 cut, the House and Senate did not reach agreement on a budget resolution and the statutory discretionary limits had expired the fiscal year before; nonetheless, the across-the-board cut was necessary in adhering to an informal limit reached between congressional leaders and President Bush and avoiding a veto of the omnibus appropriations act. Similarly, the FY2004 cut wasand FY2005 cuts were necessary to keep the cost costs of the measuremeasures under an overall limitlimits acceptable to the President. Although the across-the-board spending cuts were viewed as essential elements in meeting budget enforcement goals, some Members criticized them as involving a formulaic approach that undermined the process of making deliberate, informed choices regarding appropriate funding levels. Inclusion of Legislative Provisions. Although House and Senate rules and practices over the decades have promoted the separate consideration of legislation and appropriations, the separation has not been ironclad. In many instances, during the routine operation of the annual appropriations process, minor provisions are included in appropriations acts that technically may be regarded under the rules as legislative in nature, but do not significantly undermine the dichotomy between legislation and appropriations. At other times, however, the legislative provisions included in annual appropriations acts — especially omnibus CRS-7 appropriations acts — have been much more substantial and have represented a deliberate suspension of the usual procedural boundaries.910 In addition to the regular appropriations for FY2003, for example, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) included the Agricultural Assistance Act of 2003, amendments to the Price-Anderson Act and the Homeland Security Act, and provisions dealing with the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, among other legislative matters. While the inclusion of significant legislative matters may represent an efficient way to conclude legislative business as a congressional session comes to an end, it also may raise concerns about the adequate opportunity for Members to debate and amend them. 910 Recent practices in this regard are addressed in CRS Report RL30619, Examples of Legislative Provisions in Omnibus Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith. CRS-7 Table 2. Detail on Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004 Number of Regular Appropriations Acts: Fiscal Year Congress/ Session Enacted by Start of Fiscal Year Enacted as Freestanding Legislation Enacted in Omnibus Legislation 1986 99/1 0 6 7 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY1986 (P.L. 99-190, December 19, 1985) 1987 99/2 0 0 13 Continuing Appropriations Act, FY1987 (P.L. 99-500, October 18, 1986) 1988 100/1 0 0 13 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY1988 (P.L. 100-202, December 22, 1987) 1989 100/2 13 13 0 [none] 1990 101/1 1 13 0 [none] 1991 101/2 0 13 0 [none] 1992 102/1 3 12 0 [none] 1993 102/2 1 13 0 [none] 1994 103/1 2 13 0 [none] 1995 103/2 13 13 0 [none] 1996 104/1 0 8 5 Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134, April 26, 1996) 1997 104/2 13 7 6 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208, September 30, 1996) Omnibus Appropriations Act CRS-8 Number of Regular Appropriations Acts: Fiscal Year Congress/ Session Enacted by Start of Fiscal Year Enacted as Freestanding Legislation Enacted in Omnibus Legislation 1998 105/1 1 13 0 [none] 1999 105/2 1 5 8 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277; October 21, 1998) 2000 106/1 4 8 5 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113, November 29, 1999) 2001 106/2 2 8 5Congress/ Session 99/1 99/2 100/1 100/2 101/1 101/2 102/1 102/2 103/1 103/2 104/1 104/2 Fiscal Year 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 13 0 13 2 1 3 0 1 13 0 0 0 Enacted by Start of Fiscal Year 7 8 13 13 13 12 13 13 13 0 0 6 Enacted as Freestanding Legislation 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 7 Enacted in Omnibus Legislation Number of Regular Appropriations Acts: Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208, September 30, 1996) Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134, April 26, 1996) [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] Further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY1988 (P.L. 100-202, December 22, 1987) Continuing Appropriations Act, FY1987 (P.L. 99-500, October 18, 1986) Further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY1986 (P.L. 99-190, December 19, 1985) Omnibus Appropriations Act Table 2. Detail on Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2005 CRS-8 106/2 107/1 107/2 108/1 108/2 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 3 0 0 2 4 8.5 170 4 6 2 13 8 8 5 13 Enacted as Freestanding Legislation 4.5 89 9 7 11 0 5 5 8 0 Enacted in Omnibus Legislation Source: Calendars of the United States House of Representatives, 99th-108th Congresses 2.9 106/1 2000 1 Annual Average 105/2 1999 1 58 105/1 1998 Enacted by Start of Fiscal Year Total Congress/ Session Fiscal Year Number of Regular Appropriations Acts: CRS-9 — — Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447; December 8, 2004) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199; January 23, 2004) Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7, February 20, 2003) [none] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 [3 acts] (P.L. 106-554, December 21, 2000) VA-HUD Appropriations Act, 2001 [2 acts] (P.L. 106-377, October 27, 2000) 2002 107/1 0 13 0 [none] 2003 107/2 0 2 11 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7, February 20, 2003) 2004 108/1 3 6 7 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199; January 23, 2004) Total 57 166 80 — Annual Average 3.0 8.7 4.2 — Omnibus Appropriations Act Source: Calendars of the United States House of Representatives, 99th-108th Congresses. Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113, November 29, 1999) Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277; October 21, 1998) [none] Omnibus Appropriations Act