HR-2882-118
Became Public Law No: 118-47.
Sponsored by Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ)
What it does
This law funds six major areas of the federal government for fiscal year 2024: the Department of Defense, Financial Services and General Government agencies (including the IRS and federal courts), the Department of Homeland Security, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the Legislative Branch, and the Department of State and foreign operations. It also extends several expiring programs — including the National Flood Insurance Program, the E-Verify employment eligibility system, and the H-2B temporary worker visa program — and rescinds certain unspent funds from prior appropriations acts including the American Rescue Plan Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Who benefits
Active-duty military personnel, reservists, and National Guard members who receive pay and benefits funded by the act. Veterans and military families who benefit from the Defense Health Program and Fisher House grants. Recipients of Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Children's Health Insurance Program funding. Low-income students receiving Pell Grants and other federal student aid. Workers receiving unemployment insurance and job training services. Small businesses accessing SBA programs. Communities receiving FEMA disaster relief and preparedness grants. Foreign nationals in medically underserved U.S. areas benefiting from the Conrad 30 Program extension. Seafood industry employers and H-2B temporary workers. Allies and partner nations receiving U.S. security and development assistance. Domestic manufacturers benefiting from Buy American requirements in defense procurement.
Who is hurt
Entities and programs whose unobligated funds are rescinded, including recipients of American Rescue Plan Act funding for the Technology Modernization Fund, State Small Business Credit Initiative, and Emergency Connectivity Fund. IRS enforcement capacity is reduced by rescinding Inflation Reduction Act enforcement funds. Organizations and programs that lose funding due to restrictions, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology, EcoHealth Alliance (for China-based work), and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Contractors and grantees subject to new compliance requirements. Foreign governments restricted from receiving assistance due to human rights, corruption, or geopolitical conditions. District of Columbia residents, whose local governance remains subject to federal funding restrictions on issues such as drug policy and abortion access. Taxpayers broadly, as the act adds to federal spending and extends sequestration cuts to non-Medicare mandatory programs through FY2032.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this act fulfills Congress's most fundamental constitutional duty: funding the government and preventing a disruptive shutdown that would harm millions of Americans who depend on federal services. They contend the law strikes a responsible balance by funding national defense at levels needed to address threats from adversaries like China and Russia, while maintaining critical domestic programs such as Medicaid, Social Security, and education funding that serve tens of millions of people. Supporters point to the rescission of unspent pandemic-era funds and Inflation Reduction Act enforcement dollars as evidence of fiscal discipline. They also highlight provisions that protect taxpayers — such as Buy American requirements, prohibitions on contractor bonuses tied to restructuring, and expanded oversight reporting — as meaningful accountability measures. The extension of programs like E-Verify, the National Flood Insurance Program, and the H-2B visa program provides stability for businesses, workers, and communities that rely on predictable federal rules. Supporters further argue that the foreign assistance provisions, including Ukraine security aid and restrictions on assistance to human rights violators, advance U.S. national security and democratic values abroad.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that packaging six major appropriations bills into a single massive omnibus law undermines congressional accountability by forcing members to vote for or against thousands of unrelated provisions at once, with little time for review or debate. They contend the act continues a pattern of excessive federal spending that contributes to long-term fiscal imbalance, and that rescissions of prior-year funds are insufficient to offset new obligations. Critics on one side argue the act cuts IRS enforcement funding that would have reduced the tax gap and increased revenue from high-income non-compliers. Critics on the other side argue the act expands federal bureaucracy and maintains spending levels they view as unsustainable. Opponents also object to specific policy riders — such as restrictions on D.C. self-governance, limitations on abortion coverage in federal health plans, and prohibitions on certain firearms research — as inappropriate uses of the appropriations process to set policy outside of regular legislative order. Some critics argue that foreign assistance provisions, including aid to specific countries and restrictions on others, reflect geopolitical judgments that should be made through standalone authorizing legislation rather than buried in an appropriations bill.
Constitutional context
The Appropriations Clause (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 7) provides the foundational authority: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." The Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8) and the Necessary and Proper Clause underpin federal spending on domestic programs and regulatory agencies. The Spending Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1) authorizes Congress to spend for the general welfare, subject to conditions on recipients. The Presentment Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7) governs the bill's enactment. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 — referenced directly in Sec. 748 — limits executive discretion to withhold appropriated funds, a tension highlighted post-Loper Bright as courts independently review agency interpretations of spending authority. The act's rescission of Inflation Reduction Act IRS enforcement funds implicates ongoing debates about congressional power to claw back previously enacted mandatory-style appropriations. The D.C. provisions implicate Congress's plenary authority over the District under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17. Foreign assistance restrictions touch on the President's Art. II foreign affairs powers and the historical tension between executive discretion and congressional conditions on aid.
Checks and balances
Congress asserts significant control over the executive branch through hundreds of specific spending conditions, prior-notification requirements, reprogramming restrictions, and reporting mandates throughout the act. The executive branch retains flexibility through transfer authorities, waiver provisions (e.g., Buy American waivers for national security), and the President's ability to designate emergency spending. The act reinforces Inspector General independence by requiring agencies to provide IGs timely access to records. The Impoundment Control Act reporting requirement (Sec. 748) constrains executive discretion to withhold funds. Several provisions — such as the 30-day congressional notification before certain DOD reprogramming actions — reflect the ongoing legislative-executive negotiation over control of appropriated funds. The rescission of prior-year funds (including IRA enforcement dollars) represents Congress exercising its power to reverse prior legislative commitments, a check on both prior Congresses and the executive agencies implementing those programs.
Historical precedent
Consolidated and omnibus appropriations acts have been a regular feature of federal budgeting since the 1980s. Direct predecessors include the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42, enacted earlier in FY2024). The practice of combining multiple annual appropriations bills into a single omnibus package became common after the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 established the modern budget process. The use of appropriations riders to set policy — including D.C. governance restrictions and abortion funding prohibitions — dates to at least the 1970s (e.g., the Hyde Amendment, first enacted in 1976).