Mar 24

Mar 24 Omnibus Legislation, AKA the ‘Big Uglies’ – Is this the right move for Congress now? By Mark Pacilio

Congressional leaders and the Trump administration are negotiating an economic stimulus bill that has a multitude of dimensions – and not all are economic. The bill will likely address healthcare policy and economic policy simultaneously so that Americans can get protections and treatment for the COVID-19 virus as well as ensuring that their income can continue and businesses can get financial assistance to save them from closing and get them to the other side of this crisis.

While this approach may sound to be prudent upon first glance, it comes with inevitable ideological differences being fiercely defended by both sides, thus creating an elongated timeframe for agreement, rather than achieving the actual goal of voting for one bill quickly in both houses for the President’s signature.

This is a classic demonstration of the complexity of omnibus bills. They prove to be advantageous at times – budget bills are in essence omnibus bills.

In New York State, the Legislature has passed a number of what are known (not affectionately) as Big Ugly bills, legislation that contains a myriad of sections that may not actually be related in subject. Omnibus bills can also be a string of individual bills that get fused together as deadlines approach, such as the end of a legislative session.

The advantage of these bills for legislators are that they can sell parts of the legislation to their constituents and argue the justification of tradeoffs and votes for the more unpopular, larger bill. “The idea is to put everything in a package and do all the tradeoffs as you approach the deadline,” said Gerald Benjamin, a political science professor at SUNY New Paltz.

The disadvantages of formulating an omnibus bill are being played out now as federal legislators continue to hammer out a litany of provisions, and negotiations are impure – they include political posturing and grandstanding, as evidenced by competing speeches of congressional leaders while negotiations are still ongoing. In this case, the attempts to mesh health and economic policy under one umbrella is stalling the entire process in large part because of disagreements on the economic side.

As each side attempts to hold their ground, policy implementation relating to provisions of immediate relief to working families, along with key health safety and protection provisions keep getting pushed off. Thus, the very notion that the omnibus bill would be comprehensive, bi-partisan, and quickly done has been extinguished. Moreover, public trust is being eroded, public information about what the bill contains is not cohesive, and panic from the lack of addressing both the health and economic problems aggressively is growing.

This may be a time for separating, rather than compacting provisions. Time is of the essence, and though deadlines have driven big ugly legislation historically, the notion of splitting out the immediate economic relief provisions for workers into one bill, the health policies into another and moving them to the floor for an immediate vote seems the easier lift. After that, more extensive, and likely more partisan debate can take place with regard to financial relief for businesses. The deadlines are simply different for each. Using omnibus legislation in this instance is more counterproductive than helpful.

Unanimous support, or close to it, should be the goal in this time of crisis and may only be achieved by separating the provisions out that have the most immediate impact. Members of Congress will have to do very little, if any, selling to their constituents on the first bill in this scenario. The selling of an omnibus bill will likely be much more perilous as time passes without action.

Mark Pacilio is a former chief of staff in the New York State Assembly, local elected official, and campaign adviser. He currently works as Director of Operations at the Neighborhood Center in Utica.