Order Code RL32473
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Omnibus Appropriations Acts:
Overview of Recent Practices
Updated April 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-FY2005, a total of 260 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 259 measures enacted
into law, 170 (66%) were enacted as freestanding measures and 89 (34%) were
enacted in omnibus legislation. On average, less than nine (8.5) regular
appropriations acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures and more than
four (4.5) were enacted into law in omnibus legislation each year.
During this period, 12 different omnibus measures were enacted into law for 11
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.
Eight 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-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Detail on Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . 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 had 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.
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
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 short-
term 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-FY2005
During the 20-year period covering FY1986-FY2005, 12 different omnibus
measures were enacted into law for 11 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.
Eight 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).
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.
6For 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 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 report as an omnibus measure.
Table 1. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2005
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 260 regular appropriations acts were considered.
All but one of these acts were enacted into law either individually or as part of an
omnibus measure.7
Of the 259 measures enacted into law, 170 (66%) were enacted as freestanding
measures and 89 (34%) were enacted in omnibus legislation. On average, less than
nine (8.5) regular appropriations acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures
and more than four (4.5) 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 (23%) of the 259 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, about three (2.9) regular
appropriations acts were enacted annually before the start of the fiscal year.
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;
! 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).8
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
8For 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; (4) CRS Report RS21684, FY2004 Consolidated 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) Labor-
HHS-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.9 During the
last six fiscal years, FY2000-FY2005, five government-wide, across-the-board
spending cuts were included in omnibus appropriations acts. The cuts ranged in size
from 0.22% to 0.80% of covered appropriations, and an estimated $1.1 billion to $3.5
billion in savings:
! the 0.38% cut for FY2000 in P.L. 106-113 saved an estimated $2.4 billion in
budget authority;
! the 0.22% cut for FY2001 in P.L. 106-554 saved an estimated $1.1 billion in
budget authority;
! the 0.65% cut for FY2003 in P.L. 108-7 saved an estimated $2.6 billion in
budget authority;
! the 0.59% cut for FY2004 in P.L. 108-199 saved an estimated $2.8 billion in
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
9This 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.).
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% cut
in funding in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations division, estimated to yield
$188.7 million in savings; and (2) a cut of $50 million in administrative expenses for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 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
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 and FY2005 cuts were necessary
to keep the costs of the measures under overall limits 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.10
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.
10Recent practices in this regard are addressed in CRS Report RL30619, Examples of
Legislative Provisions in Omnibus Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith.

---

ns Act
o
ati
ber 22, 1987)
ecem
Appropriations Act, FY1986
Appropriations Act, FY1988
bus Appropri
ni
m
Appropriations Act, FY1987
FY1986-FY2005
O
.L. 99-190, December 19, 1985)
.L. 99-500, October 18, 1986)
.L. 100-202, D
.L. 104-134, April 26, 1996)
.L. 104-208, September 30, 1996)
ts:
c
(P
(P
(P
(P
(P
nibus Consolidated Rescissions and
nibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997
m
m
Further Continuing
Continuing
Further Continuing
[none]
[none]
[none]
[none]
[none]
[none]
[none]
O
Appropriations Act of 1996
O
n
ed i
bus
8
ni
7
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
m
Enact
O
Legislation
CRS-
ppropriations A
6
0
0
3
3
2
3
3
13
1
1
1
1
1
13
8
7
Enacted as
reestanding
F
Legislation
Regular Appropriations Acts:
iscal
ed by
F
0
0
0
13
1
0
3
1
2
13
0
13
Year
Number of
Enact
Start of
Table 2. Detail on Omnibus A
ngress/
99/1
99/2
o
Session
100/1
100/2
101/1
101/2
102/1
102/2
103/1
103/2
104/1
104/2
C
l
Fisca
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

---

s]
ns Act
o
ency
ati
erg
, 2001 [2 act
ber 21, 2000)
ecem
ations Act
bus Appropri
ni
m
O
ental Appropriations Act, 1999
.L. 105-277; October 21, 1998)
.L. 106-113, November 29, 1999)
.L. 106-554, D
.L. 106-377, October 27, 2000)
.L. 108-7, February 20, 2003)
.L. 108-199; January 23, 2004)
.L. 108-447; December 8, 2004)
(P
(P
(P
(P
(P
(P
(P
nibus Consolidated and Em
-HUD Appropri
m
A
onsolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003
[none]
O
Supplem
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 [3 acts]
V
[none]
C
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
—
—
s
n
esse
ed i
bus
ngr
9
ni
0
8
5
5
0
11
7
9
89
4.5
Co
m
th
Enact
O
Legislation
CRS-
-108th
, 99
ives
3
3
at
1
5
8
8
1
2
6
4
170
8.5
ent
es
Enacted as
reestanding
F
Legislation
Repr
Regular Appropriations Acts:
e of
iscal
ed by
F
Hous
1
1
4
2
0
0
3
1
58
es
Year
2.9
at
Number of
Enact
Start of
ted St
e Uni
h
Total
t
ngress/
s of
o
Session
105/1
105/2
106/1
106/2
107/1
107/2
108/1
108/2
Average
C
lendar
a
l
Annual
C
:
Fisca
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
urce
So

---