Order Code RL32473
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Omnibus Appropriations Acts:
Overview of Recent Practices
Updated October 5, 2004
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-FY2004, a total of 247 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 246 measures enacted
into law, 166 (67%) were enacted as freestanding measures and 80 (33%) were
enacted in omnibus legislation. On average, about nine (8.7) regular appropriations
acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures and four (4.2) were enacted into
law in omnibus legislation each year.
During this period, 11 different omnibus measures were enacted into law for 10
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 seven of them.
Seven 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-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Detail on Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . 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 has been fixed at 13 for several
decades. 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
1Discretionary 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.
2For background on the appropriations process, see CRS Report 97-684, The Congressional
Appropriations Process: An Introduction, by Sandy Streeter.
3For 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
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 short-
term funding by formula. 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-FY2004
During the period covering FY1986-FY2004, 11 different omnibus measures
were enacted into law for 10 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 seven of them.
Seven 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).
P.L. 106-553 was enacted as an omnibus measure enacting the Commerce-
Justice-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.
4The sequestration process is discussed in detail in CRS Report RL31137, Sequestration
Procedures Under the 1985 Balanced Budget Act, by Robert Keith.
5See “The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950,” by Dalmus H. Nelson, Journal of Politics,
vol. 15, no. 2, May 1953.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2004
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)
During this period, a total of 247 regular appropriations acts were considered.
All but one of these acts were enacted into law either individually or as part of an
omnibus measure.6
Of the 246 measures enacted into law, 166 (67%) were enacted as freestanding
measures and 80 (33%) were enacted in omnibus legislation. On average, about nine
(8.7) regular appropriations acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures and
four (4.2) were enacted into law in omnibus legislation each year.
Fifty-seven (23%) of the 246 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
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 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.
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).7
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).
7For 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).
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.8 During the
last five fiscal years, FY2000-FY2004, four government-wide, across-the-board
spending cuts were included in omnibus appropriations acts. The cuts ranged in size
from 0.22% to 0.65% of covered appropriations, and $1.1 billion to $2.8 billion in
savings:
! the 0.38% cut for FY2000 in P.L. 106-113 saved $2.4 billion in budget
authority;
! the 0.22% cut for FY2001 in P.L. 106-554 saved $1.1 billion in budget
authority;
! the 0.65% cut for FY2003 in P.L. 108-7 saved $2.6 billion in budget authority;
and
! the 0.59% cut for FY2004 in P.L. 108-199 saved $2.8 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
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
uniform spending cuts in nondefense programs: (1) a 0.465% uniform cut on funding
in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations portion of the measure, expected 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.
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
8This 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 was necessary to keep the
cost of the measure under an overall limit 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
appropriations acts — have been much more substantial and have represented a
deliberate suspension of the usual procedural boundaries.9
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.
9Recent 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
Congress/
Enacted by
Enacted as
Enacted in
Omnibus Appropriations Act
Year
Session
Start of Fiscal
Freestanding
Omnibus
Year
Legislation
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)

---

CRS-8
Number of Regular Appropriations Acts:
Fiscal
Congress/
Enacted by
Enacted as
Enacted in
Omnibus Appropriations Act
Year
Session
Start of Fiscal
Freestanding
Omnibus
Year
Legislation
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
5
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
—
Source: Calendars of the United States House of Representatives, 99th-108th Congresses.

---

---