Omnibus Appropriations Acts:
Overview of Recent Practices
Jessica Tollestrup
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

January 27, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32473

---

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 29-fiscal year period covering FY1986-FY2014, a total of 345 regular appropriations
bills were enacted into law. Of these measures, 191 (55.4%) were enacted as freestanding
measures and 154 (44.6%) were enacted in omnibus measures. On average, each year nearly 7
(6.6) regular appropriations acts were enacted into law as freestanding measures and about 5 (5.3)
were enacted into law in omnibus measures.
During this period, 20 different omnibus measures were enacted into law for 17 different fiscal
years (2 separate omnibus appropriations acts were enacted for FY2001, FY2009, and FY2012).
Each of the omnibus acts funded between 2 and 13 regular appropriations acts, on average
funding almost 8 (7.7) of them.
Sixteen of the omnibus measures were bills or joint resolutions carrying the designation
“omnibus,” “consolidated,” or “omnibus consolidated” appropriations in the title; six were titled
as continuing appropriations acts (FY1986, FY1987, FY1988, FY2009, the first for FY2012, and
FY2013); 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
rescissions, and the inclusion of significant legislative (rather than funding) provisions.
This report will be updated at the conclusion of the annual appropriations process.

Congressional Research Service

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background................................................................................................................................ 1
Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2014 ............................................................................ 2
Selected Issues in the Use of Omnibus Appropriations Acts ........................................................... 5
Prior Passage of Regular Appropriations Bills .......................................................................... 5
Across-the-Board Rescissions ................................................................................................... 7
Inclusion of Legislative Provisions ........................................................................................... 8

Tables
Table 1. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2014 .............................................................. 3
Table 2. Prior Passage of Regular Appropriations Bills That Were Eventually Enacted in
Omnibus Acts: FY1986-FY2014 .................................................................................................. 6
Table 3. Detail on Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2014 ............................................. 10

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 13
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 13

Congressional Research Service

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

Introduction
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 may enact discretionary spending1 in the form of regular
appropriations acts, as well as continuing and supplemental appropriations acts.2 The number of
regular appropriations bills had been fixed at 13 for several decades,3 but a realignment of the
House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees at the beginning of the 109th Congress reduced
the number of regular appropriations bills normally considered each year to 11 (starting with the
FY2006 cycle).4 The number of regular appropriations bills was increased to 12 at the beginning
of the 110th Congress (starting with the FY2008 cycle) due to further subcommittee realignment,
and has remained at that level through the date of this report.
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 regular appropriations
into an omnibus measure. In some instances, action on the unfinished acts carries over into the
following session. 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.5
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.

1 Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of total federal spending, is spending that is under the
jurisdiction 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 R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process:
An Introduction, by Jessica Tollestrup.
3 For information on changes in the number of regular appropriations acts over the years, see CRS Report RL31572,
Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes from 1920 to 2013, by Jessica Tollestrup.
4 The Senate Appropriations Committee reported a twelfth regular appropriations act, for the District of Columbia, but
in final legislative action it was incorporated into another bill.
5 For a general discussion of budget enforcement procedures, see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal
Budget Process, coordinated by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

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.6 Pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), discretionary
budget authority for FY2012-FY2021, with some exceptions, is again subject to statutory
spending limits on defense and non-defense spending.7
For nearly two centuries, regular appropriations bills 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).8 The following year,
the House and Senate returned to the practice of considering the regular appropriations acts
individually.
In recent years, however, the House and Senate on several occasions have combined multiple
regular appropriations acts into “consolidated” appropriations measures, sometimes enacting
individual bills by cross-reference. Beginning in the late 1970s, certain omnibus acts have also
sometimes been titled by Congress as “continuing appropriations acts,” despite the fact that these
acts generally incorporate the texts of multiple regular appropriations acts for full-year funding,
or enact such texts by reference. This is in contrast to the usual form of continuing appropriations,
which provides funding at a rate with anomalies.9 This report includes only the former type of
“continuing appropriations act” in its account of omnibus appropriations acts.
Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2014
During the 29-year period covering FY1986-FY2014, 20 different omnibus measures were
enacted into law for 17 different fiscal years (two separate omnibus appropriations acts were
enacted for FY2001, FY2009, and FY2012).10 The 20 omnibus appropriations acts covered a total
of 154 regular appropriations acts. Each of the omnibus acts funded between 2 and 13 regular
appropriations acts, on average funding almost 8 (7.7) of them.

6 The sequestration process is discussed in detail in CRS Report RL31137, Sequestration Procedures Under the 1985
Balanced Budget Act, by Robert Keith.
7 The spending caps and enforcement procedures contained in the Budget Control Act are discussed in detail in CRS
Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011, by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
8 See “The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950,” by Dalmus H. Nelson, Journal of Politics, vol. 15, no. 2, May 1953.
9 For more information on practices relating to the use of continuing appropriations acts, see CRS Report R42647,
Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup.
10 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.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

Table 1. Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2014
1. Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1986
(P.L. 99-190; December 19, 1985)
2. Continuing Appropriations Act, 1987
(P.L. 99-591; October 18, 1986)
3. Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1988
(P.L. 100-202; December 22, 1987)
4. Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-134; April 26, 1996)
5. Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997
(P.L. 104-208; September 30, 1996)
6. Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999
(P.L. 105-277; October 21, 1998)
7. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000
(P.L. 106-113; November 29, 1999)
8. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001
(P.L. 106-554; December 21, 2000)
9. VA-HUD Appropriations Act, 2001
(P.L. 106-377; October 27, 2000)
10. Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003
(P.L. 108-7; February 20, 2003)
11. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
(P.L. 108-199; January 23, 2004)
12. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(P.L. 108-447; December 8, 2004)
13. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-161; December 26, 2007)
14. Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2009
(P.L. 110-329; September 30, 2008)
15. Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8; March 11, 2009)
16. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(P.L. 111-117; December 16, 2009)
17. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012
(P.L. 112-55; November 18, 2011)
18. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012
(P.L. 112-74; December 23, 2011)
19. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-6; March 26, 2013)
20. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014
(P.L. 113-76; January 17, 2014)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using data from the
Legislative Information System (LIS).
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

Sixteen of the omnibus measures were bills or joint resolutions carrying the designation
“omnibus,” “consolidated,” or “omnibus consolidated” appropriations in the title; six were titled
as continuing appropriations acts (FY1986, FY1987, FY1988, FY2009, the first for FY2012, and
FY2013); 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 3).
During this period, a total of 345 regular appropriations bills were enacted into law. Of these
measures, 191 (55.4%) were enacted as freestanding measures and 154 (44.6%) were enacted in
omnibus measures. On average, each year nearly 7 (6.6) regular appropriations acts were enacted
into law as freestanding measures and about 5 (5.3) were enacted into law in omnibus measures.11
Fifty-eight (16.8%) of the 345 regular appropriations acts were enacted into law on or before
October 1, the start of the fiscal year. Nine of these bills were included in omnibus measures (six
in FY1997 and three in FY2009) and the rest were enacted as freestanding measures. On average,
two regular appropriations bills per year were enacted before the start of the fiscal year during
this period.
Ten of the 16 omnibus appropriations acts bearing the designation “omnibus,” “consolidated,” or
“omnibus consolidated” in their title originated in the House as a regular appropriations bill and
were expanded in coverage (and their titles redesignated) at the stage of resolving House-Senate
differences. These included the appropriations acts for
• Defense (H.R. 3610) in FY1997;
• Transportation (H.R. 4328) in FY1999;
• District of Columbia (H.R. 3194) in FY2000;
• Labor-HHS-Education (H.R. 4577) in FY2001;
• Agriculture (H.R. 2673) in FY2004;
• Foreign Operations (H.R. 4818) in FY2005;
• State-Foreign Operations (H.R. 2764) in FY2008;
• Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (H.R. 3288) in FY2010; and
• Agriculture (H.R. 2112) and Military Construction-VA (H.R. 2055) in FY2012.
In the case of the FY1997, FY1999, FY2000, FY2001, FY2004, FY2005, FY2010, and the
second FY2012 omnibus appropriations acts, the transformation from a regular appropriations bill
into a consolidated appropriations measure occurred as part of the conference proceedings
between the House and Senate. For the first FY2012 omnibus, the additional appropriations acts
were added as a Senate floor amendment to a House-passed regular appropriations bill before

11 Funding for the activities covered in 21 additional regular appropriations bills was provided by means of full-year
continuing resolutions. In FY1992, funding for activities covered by the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for that
year was provided in P.L. 102-266, enacted on April 1, 1992. In FY2007, funding for activities covered by nine of the
appropriations bills for that year was provided in P.L. 110-5, enacted on February 15, 2007. In FY2011, funding for the
activities covered by 11 of the appropriations bills for that year was provided in Division B of P.L. 112-10, enacted on
April 15, 2011. For further information on full-year continuing resolutions, see CRS Report R42647, Continuing
Resolutions: Overview of Components and Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

conference occurred. For FY2008, conference procedures were not used and the transformation
occurred in connection with an exchange of amendments between the two chambers.12
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).13
None of the other five omnibus appropriations acts bearing such designations involved the
transformation of a regular appropriations act. Four of the acts (one for FY1996, two for FY2009,
and one for FY2013) originated as an omnibus measure and retained this status throughout
consideration. 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.
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. These issues include the extent to which regular appropriations that are enacted in
omnibus measures have been passed by the House and Senate prior to final congressional action,
the use of across-the-board rescissions, and the inclusion of legislative provisions.
Prior Passage of Regular Appropriations Bills
One of the chief concerns regarding the use of omnibus appropriations acts is that it reduces the
opportunities for Members to debate and amend the regular appropriations acts that are
incorporated therein. This concern may be lessened if the regular appropriations acts incorporated
into omnibus measures have been previously passed by the House and Senate before action on a
final version.
During the FY1986-FY2014 period, the House was more likely than the Senate to have given
prior floor consideration to regular appropriations eventually incorporated into omnibus acts, with
the House considering 106 out of the 154 regular appropriations bills, while the Senate
considered 71 (see Table 2). For both the House and the Senate, between FY1986-FY2001, the
majority of appropriations acts that were ultimately included in omnibus measures were
previously passed by the House and Senate each fiscal year. However, during certain fiscal years
between FY2003 and FY2014, one or both chambers passed fewer than half of the regular
appropriations bills that were ultimately enacted in omnibus form. For the House, this occurred in

12 For a discussion of legislative action on the FY2008 measure, see CRS Report RL34298, Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008: Brief Overview, by Robert Keith.
13 For additional information on the legislative history and structure of recent omnibus appropriations acts, see (1) CRS
Report RS21433, FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith; (2) CRS Report
RS21684, FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith; (3) CRS Report RS21983,
FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act: Reference Guide, by Robert Keith; (4) CRS Report RL34298, Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2008: Brief Overview, by Robert Keith; and (5) CRS Report RL34711, Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329): An Overview, by Robert Keith.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

five different instances over four fiscal years—FY2003, FY2009, FY2012, and FY2014. For the
Senate, this occurred in six different instances over five fiscal years—FY2005, FY2009, FY2012,
FY2013, and FY2014.
Table 2. Prior Passage of Regular Appropriations Bills That Were Eventually Enacted
in Omnibus Acts: FY1986-FY2014
Omnibus Appropriations Act
Number of
Regular
Appropriations
Fiscal
Acts Enacted
House Prior
Senate Prior
Year
Title
Therein
Passage
Passage
1986
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1986
7
6
4
1987
Continuing Appropriations Act, 1987
13
11
7
1988
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1988
13
10
10
1996
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
5 5 4
Appropriations Act of 1996
1997
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997
6
5
1
1999
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
8 7 5
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999
2000
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000
5
4
4
2001
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001
3
3
2
VA-HUD Appropriations Act, 2001
2
2
2
2003
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003
11
3
11a
2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
7
7
6
2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
9
8
2
2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
11
11
6
2009
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
3 1 0
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
9
0
0
2010
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
6
6
3
2012
Consolidated and Further Continuing
3 1 3b
Appropriations Act, 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012
9
5
1
2013
Consolidated and Further Continuing
12 7 0
Appropriations Act, 2013
2014
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014
12
4
0
Total: —
154
106
71
Source: Prepared by the CRS using data from the Appropriations Status Tables for FY1999-FY2014 (available at
http://www.crs.gov/pages/AppropriationsStatusTable.aspx) and House Calendars for the 99th-105th Congresses.
a. For FY2003, during the Senate’s prior consideration of H.J.Res. 2, a continuing resolution, the Senate
amended it to be an omnibus appropriations measure that contained the texts of 11 regular appropriations
bills, thereby allowing consideration of such regular appropriations to occur simultaneously. Differences
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

were subsequently resolved through conference proceedings, and final passage of H.J.Res. 2 occurred
through House and Senate adoption of the conference report. Each of these 11 bills is counted as having
been previously passed by the Senate for the purposes of this report.
b. For FY2012, during the Senate’s prior consideration of H.R. 2112, the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations
bill, the texts of two additional appropriations bills were added as an amendment to H.R. 2112, thereby
allowing consideration of such regular appropriations to occur simultaneously. Differences were
subsequently resolved through conference proceedings, and final passage of H.R. 2112 occurred through
House and Senate adoption of the conference report. Each of these three bills is counted as having been
previously passed by the Senate for the purposes of this report.
Across-the-Board Rescissions
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
rescissions in discretionary budget authority into annual appropriations acts.14 During the 14
fiscal years covering FY2000-FY2013, six government-wide, across-the-board rescissions were
included in omnibus appropriations acts.15
The government-wide across-the-board rescissions included in omnibus appropriations acts
ranged in size from 0.032% to 0.80% of covered appropriations:
• the 0.38% rescission for FY2000 in P.L. 106-113;
• the 0.22% rescission for FY2001 in P.L. 106-554;
• the 0.65% rescission for FY2003 in P.L. 108-7;
• the 0.59% rescission FY2004 in P.L. 108-199;16
• the 0.80% rescission for FY2005 in P.L. 108-447; and
• the 0.032% rescission for security budget authority17 and 0.2% rescission for
nonsecurity budget authority for FY201318 in P.L. 113-6.19

14 This topic is discussed in more detail in CRS Report RL32153, Across-the-Board Spending Cuts in End-of-Session
Appropriations Acts, by Robert Keith, and CRS Report R43234, Across-the-Board Rescissions in Appropriations Acts:
Overview and Recent Practices, by Jessica Tollestrup.
15 Across-the-board rescissions may also be included in appropriations measures that are enacted in separate vehicles.
For example, an across-the-board rescission was included in the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006, a year in
which all of the regular appropriations acts were enacted separately. The act, which became P.L. 109-148 on December
30, 2005, included in Division B, §3801(a), a government-wide spending cut of 1% (118 Stat. 2791-2792). Emergency
requirements and spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs were exempted from the cut, which was expected to
reduce total budget authority by about $8.5 billion. For additional information, see OMB Bulletin 06-02, Guidance on
Implementing the Government-wide Across-the-Board Reduction in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
FY2006 (H.R. 2863), January 5, 2006, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/
bulletins/fy2006/b06-02.pdf.
16 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.).
17 As defined by Section 250(c)(4)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA),
security budget authority includes discretionary appropriations associated with agency budgets for the Department of
Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security
Administration, intelligence community management, and budget function 150.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

Omnibus appropriations acts sometimes include other across-the-board rescissions that apply to
individual appropriations acts, as set forth in separate divisions of the measure. P.L. 108-199, for
example, included two requirements for uniform spending cuts in nondefense programs: (1) a
0.465% rescission of budget authority in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations division;
and (2) a rescission 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 rescissions focused on particular divisions of the act: (1) a 0.54%
rescission in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations division, (2) a 0.594% rescission in the
Interior Appropriations division, and (3) a rescission 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).
More recently, Section 3001 of P.L. 113-6 provided across-the-board rescissions that were
applicable to various projects and activities in certain divisions of the act. For security
discretionary budget authority in Divisions A through E, 0.1% was rescinded. For nonsecurity
discretionary budget authority, 2.513% was rescinded in Divisions A and E, and 1.877% was
rescinded in Divisi

on B.
The significance of these across-the-board rescissions have differed with regards to budget
enforcement. The FY2000 and FY2013 rescissions were an integral component of the plan that
successfully avoided a sequester at the end of the session. The FY2001 rescission contributed to
overall discretionary spending being below the statutory limits, but the across-the-board
rescission proved to be unnecessary in avoiding a sequester. With regard to the FY2003
rescission, 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
rescission was used to adhere to an informal limit reached between congressional leaders and
President Bush and avoiding a veto of the omnibus appropriations act. Similarly, the FY2004,
FY2005, and FY2008 rescissions were used to keep the costs of the measures under overall limits
acceptable to the President.
Inclusion of Legislative Provisions
Although House and Senate rules and practices over the decades have promoted the separate
consideration of legislation and appropriations, this separation was created to serve congressional
purposes and has not always been ironclad. In many instances, during the routine operation of the
annual appropriations process, minor provisions are included in appropriations acts that
technically might be regarded under the precedents as legislative in nature, but arguably do not

(...continued)
18 As defined by Section 250(c)(4)(B) of the BBEDCA, nonsecurity budget authority includes all discretionary
appropriations that are not security budget authority.
19 The across-the-board rescissions in section 3004 of P.L. 113-6 were intended to prevent the possibility that the new
budget authority provided in the act would exceed the FY2013 discretionary spending limits in Section 251(c)(2) of the
BBEDCA, due to estimating differences between the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and
Budget. As enacted, section 3004 provided two separate across-the-board rescissions—one for nonsecurity budget
authority and one for security budget authority—of 0%. The section required that the percentages be increased if OMB
estimated that additional rescissions would be needed to avoid exceeding the discretionary spending limits for FY2013.
Subsequent to the enactment of P.L. 113-6, OMB announced that it had calculated that these limits would be exceeded.
Consequently, the across-the-board rescissions in Section 3004 were increased by OMB to 0.032% for security budget
authority, and 0.2% for nonsecurity budget authority.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices

significantly undermine the distinction 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.
Both House and Senate rules prohibit the inclusion of legislation in appropriations bills in
specified circumstances. Clauses 2(b) and 2(c) of House Rule XXI prohibit the inclusion of
legislative provisions on regular appropriations bills reported by the committee or added during
the floor process. However, continuing resolutions are not considered by House rules to be
regular appropriations bills and thus do not fall under the purview of these restrictions. In the
Senate, Rule XVI prohibits the inclusion of legislative provisions in general appropriations
legislation, but allows exceptions in specified circumstances. As the rules in the House and Senate
barring the inclusion of legislation in appropriations are not self-enforcing, can be waived, and
allow some exceptions, omnibus appropriations acts have sometimes been used as vehicles to
address substantive legislative concerns.
Over the past two decades, there are some instances of the incorporation of significant legislative
provisions within omnibus appropriations acts. 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. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161) included such items as
the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 Amendments, the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 Amendments, the ED 1.0 Act, and the Kids in
Disasters Well-being, Safety, and Health Act of 2007.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Table 3. Detail on Omnibus Appropriations Acts: FY1986-FY2014
Number of Regular Appropriations Acts:
Fiscal
Congress/
Enacted by Start of
Enacted as Freestanding
Enacted in Omnibus
Year
Sessiona
Fiscal Yearb
Measures
Measures
Omnibus Appropriations Act
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. 99-591, 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
4
12c 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)
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)
CRS-10

---

Number of Regular Appropriations Acts:
Fiscal
Congress/
Enacted by Start of
Enacted as Freestanding
Enacted in Omnibus
Year
Sessiona
Fiscal Yearb
Measures
Measures
Omnibus Appropriations Act
2001
106/2
2
8
5
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 [3 acts]
(P.L. 106-554, December 21, 2000) and
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)
2005
108/2
1
4
9
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
(P.L. 108-447; December 8, 2004)
2006 109/1
2
11
0
[none]
2007 109/2
1
2d 0
[none]
2008
110/1
0
1
11
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-161; December 26, 2007)
2009
110/2
3
0
12
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 110-329; September 30, 2008) and
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8; March 11, 2009)
2010
111/1
1
6
6
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(P.L. 111-117; December 16, 2009)
2011 111/2
0
1e 0
[none]
2012
112/1
0
0
12
Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2012
(P.L. 112-55; November 18, 2011)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012
(P.L. 112-74; December 23, 2011)
2013
113/1
0
0
12
Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013
(P.L. 113-6; March 26, 2013)
CRS-11

---

Number of Regular Appropriations Acts:
Fiscal
Congress/
Enacted by Start of
Enacted as Freestanding
Enacted in Omnibus
Year
Sessiona
Fiscal Yearb
Measures
Measures
Omnibus Appropriations Act
2014
113/2
0
0
12
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014
(P.L. 113-76; January 17, 2014)
Total 58
191 154
—
Annual Average
2.0 6.6
5.3
—
Source: Prepared by CRS using Calendars of the United States House of Representatives, 99th-112th Congresses, and the Legislative Information System.
a. In five instances, covering FY1996, FY2003, FY2004, FY2009, and FY2013, omnibus appropriations legislation was not enacted into law until the following session. In
three instances, covering FY1992, FY2007, and FY2011, appropriations were completed by means of continuing appropriations that provided temporary funding
through a formula and anomalies until the end of the fiscal year. These are not counted as “regular appropriations acts” in this table.
b. Includes appropriations acts enacted before or on October 1 of the budget year.
c. Funding for activities covered by the FY1992 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill was provided in P.L. 102-266, enacted on April 1, 1992.
d. Funding for activities covered by nine of the FY2007 appropriations bills was provided in P.L. 110-5, enacted on February 15, 2007.
e. Funding for the activities covered by 11 of the FY2011 appropriations bills was provided in Division B of P.L. 112-10, enacted on April 15, 2011.

CRS-12

---

Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices


Author Contact Information

Jessica Tollestrup

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
jtollestrup@crs.loc.gov, 7-0941

Acknowledgments
The original version of this report was written by Robert Keith, formerly a specialist in American National
Government at CRS. The listed contact has revised and updated this report and is available to respond to
inquiries on the subject.


Congressional Research Service
13

---