The Alliance Expresses Concern/Disappointment with House and Senate Mark-ups

After the House and Senate Appropriations Committee finished mark-ups this week, the Alliance released a statement of concern and disappointment:

July 11, 2024 | Silver Spring, MD – The Ag/FDA spending bill adopted by the House Appropriations Committee last night was disappointing. It provides the FDA with about $20 million less in taxpayer money in FY 25 than is available to the agency in the current fiscal year. As a practical matter, the decrease is actually much larger because the diminished level of FY 25 funding will nonetheless need to fund new initiatives, program growth, mandatory salary increases, and building and facilities repairs. The net loss for the Agency is at least $150 million compared to the FY 24 final appropriations.

This morning’s Senate Appropriations Committee-adopted Ag/FDA funding bill is an improvement, but it still leaves the agency with significantly less money than it will need in FY 25. It includes a small increase of $22 million in taxpayer spending. However, the Agency will still need well above that amount to pay for new initiatives, program growth, and mandatory salary increases. The net loss for the agency is at least $100 million compared to the FY 24 final appropriations.

FDA continues to enjoy bipartisan support in Congress, reflected by Members’ statements in support of the agency’s importance. Additionally, there is uncertain potential that a higher spending limit in the Senate may ultimately ease constraints on spending.

We will continue to press Congress to recognize and fund FDA’s vital work. We also welcome any development where increased total federal spending could translate into tangible support for FDA’s expanding mission and growing responsibilities.

To understand the full force of our concern, it is useful to go back to the FY 24 funding cycle. 

As part of the President’s Budget Request for FY 24, the Administration called for a $370 million increase for FDA in its BA (non-user fee) appropriations. This was not just the FDA's view. The request would have had to be signed off on by HHS and OMB; they clearly agreed that FDA’s responsibilities were growing quickly and needed much more support. 

In response, Congress chose to hold FDA’s FY 24 funding at roughly the same level ($3.5 billion) from FY 23 to FY 24. To be more precise the final amount was a decrease of $8 million. 

Of course, the net impact was far worse than the stated amount. For slightly less money than it had in the prior fiscal year, FDA had to absorb the cost of mandatory pay raises ($105 million) and find $50 million in existing program funding to reallocate for Congressionally specified initiatives. Beyond that, there was no allowance made for other new initiatives in FY24 or for predictable program growth. 

One of the Alliance’s greatest fears has been the potential for a second year of “level funding” that masks a significant decrease in agency support. Were that to occur, the FDA’s spending power could be cut by as much as 10% in a mere 18 months. 

We will continue to work for increased funding by, in part, reminding Congress of the importance of a strong FDA and the demands created by the agency’s expanding mission and growing responsibilities.

Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.