Q&A: Bumpy September Ride for Government Funding
When Congress returns on September 9, it will need to reach a relatively quick agreement on a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund government programs once the new fiscal year begins on October 1. I would be surprised if September goes smoothly.
Q: Why does everyone (including Members of Congress) expect that passage of a CR will be challenging?
A: Timing: the House has only thirteen days of session scheduled in September, while the Senate has fifteen days scheduled. We are also hearing that many House members would like to start recess on September 20 (to go home to campaign). That would chop yet a few more days of the House’s already short window for action
Disagreements on duration: there is known division within Congress as to whether the CR should continue funding until after the election or into the new year. Those who want to wait for next year are mostly conservative House Republicans who are hoping that the election will sweep their party into control of the Executive Branch and both Houses of Congress.
Disagreements on funding levels: generally, the goal is to continue programs at their previous years' levels until Congress passes FY 25 appropriations bills. However, in the somewhat distant past, some CR’s were set at a lower level (e.g. prior year funding minus 3%). Another potential disruption comes from calls for additional funding for specific programs likely to run out of cash if only set to receive last year’s level.
Disagreements on content: Anything else that might go into the CR bill is problematic and likely to cause delay. This extends even to the seemingly innocuous list of program anomalies supplied by OMB (e.g. temporary extension of a program that is about to expire).
At a more broadly consequential level, there is a brewing fight in the House to require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Non-citizens already cannot vote in federal elections and there is no evidence of widespread problems. So, this is a pre-election messaging bill that also has the potential to suppress registration of new voters.
Q: Which option do House Republicans want–a quick exit to campaign or an extended (and inevitably losing) fight over content?
A: House Republican leadership is trying to figure that out now. My sense is that Speaker Johnson is trying to find a way to engage on the voter registration issue, without losing control of the timing. He will have to walk a fine line.
Q: What happens if there is a deadlock and agreements cannot be reached?
A: The conventional wisdom is that “a government shutdown ahead of an election is a really bad idea.” But we have learned in recent years that some (House Republican conservatives) don’t view a shutdown negatively. Coming from relatively safe seats, they seem heedless of the electoral consequences that “the public is likely to punish whichever party they see as the cause of the shutdown.”
Without a CR, the government would be unfunded on October 1 and the President would be required to initiate a shutdown. We have written extensively over the years about the impact of a government shutdown on FDA. For now, those articles are searchable on our website. If a shutdown starts to become a real possibility we will update and re-publish our findings.
FDA’s fate in a shutdown is more nuanced than most federal agencies because of its public health responsibilities and the availability (for specific purposes) of user fee funds. New user fees cannot be collected, so fee income eventually runs out.
As the October 1 deadline approaches and the possibility of a shutdown becomes imminent, it is possible the House and Senate leadership will agree upon short-term fixes (2 or 3 days or a week) to keep negotiations going. I remember one year, Congress stayed in session until nearly mid-October before a longer CR (until after the election) was finally adopted. Those Members of Congress who were standing for re-election were not happy with those keeping them in Washington.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.