A Way to End Gridlock: Act Incrementally Omnibus Bills Contain So Many Diverse Elements That They Overwhelm the Legislative Process
Dennis E. Eckart and Bruce F. Freed. Dennis E. Eckart is a partner former member of Congress. Bruce F. Freed is president of Integrated Strategies, a. Washington consulting firm public affairs., The Christian Science Monitor
THE collapse of President Clinton's legislative agenda at the end of this Congress ought to ring the death knell for a notorious legislative gorilla known as the omnibus bill.
For almost two decades, this has been the primary vehicle to address major issues. It won't work anymore. Congress should immediately break big issues into small and discrete pieces and tackle them one piece at a time.
Such critical issues as health care, government reorganization, and telecommunications, packaged as omnibus bills in this Congress, all fell victim to their own gargantuan size and complexity. The crime bill nearly suffered the same fate. All were packed with so many diverse elements that they overwhelmed the legislative process.
The modern omnibus bill was born out of the budget process created in 1974 to give Congress more influence over national fiscal policy. Two legislative instruments were created: budget resolutions and budget reconciliation.
Later, President Carter used omnibus legislation to reshape energy policy. Congress depended on it to pass huge appropriations necessary to keep the government funded beyond each fiscal year. Then-Rep. Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi applied the acronym BOMB (Bloated Omnibus Money Bills) to these monstrosities. President Reagan turned omnibus bills into an art form by using them as the principal vehicles for tax cuts and deficit reduction. Even he realized their folly, slamming one to the podium during a State of the Union address and vowing never to sign another.
Omnibus bills once served a purpose. They provided a mechanism for dealing with difficult issues. They were based on a system in which consensus and compromise were the passwords for progress. They circumvented jurisdictional disputes among committees and provided cover for items that, on their own, would never pass. They also gave rise to the drumbeat for a presidential line-item veto.
The expediency of the catch-all bill is alluring. But expediency seldom brings credit or productivity to our legislative process. Never has that been more evident than in the 103rd Congress.
President Clinton's omnibus health-care initiative responded to the public enthusiasm for change in health-care delivery. But in its size and scope, it denied the public the opportunity to address issues individually or influence each of the provisions of health-care reform separately.
The public's insistence on congressional action is not necessarily inconsistent with the public's distrust of the Congress to act in their best interest when - as in the case of health care - change is offered in an all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it 1,300-page opus. …