The Pentagon is FDA’s Ally, Really!
In last week’s column (here), I explored some of the ways that the September CR process was likely to go sideways.
My critique did not anticipate the emergence of a phenomenon that I have written about before: the role of the Pentagon as the (coincidental) ally of FDA and other discretionary domestic programs with expanding missions and responsibilities.
As expected, House Speaker Johnson attempted to advance a CR this week that had two notable features: a 6-month CR and the SAVE Act (which is about eligibility to vote in federal elections and super-controversial). House Democrats hate both components, albeit for different reasons. However, the Speaker did not need them if he could keep his Republican caucus together. Specifically, he could lose up to four Republican votes and still prevail.
What tanked Johnson’s effort this week was not SAVE, but the 6-month duration of the CR. The Department of Defense (aka “The Generals”) went to leading Republican defense appropriators and made two points: a 6-month CR would cost the Pentagon about $6 billion and would limit its ability to move forward on new programs and new investments.
To be noted: the effect of a 6-month CR on FDA is roughly parallel: the agency will lose money and have limited ability to move forward on new programs and new investments,
The duration of the CR is still undecided–and 6-months may still be in the House Republican CR. However, the longer timeframe is effectively dead because the Generals have surely delivered the same message to the Senate, which is even more receptive to protecting the military than the House.
The shorter time frame is good for the FDA. Thank you, DOD.
More than just CR deadlines play a role and mirror DOD’s common cause with the FDA. The military is the paradigm for a federal agency whose responsibilities are myriad and growing and its work is vital to our nation’s well-being. Most Members of Congress respect that and are inclined to listen carefully and give the agency some leeway in their funding requests and their underlying analysis of military needs.
In contrast, domestic discretionary programs are inching toward being treated as a commodity. In the current FY 25 bills, there are still agency-by-agency assessments of spending needs, but last year’s House Republican bills were built around across-the-board cuts in which individual agency needs were not considered.
As we make the case that FDA’s mission and resource needs are exceptionally important and more pressing than many other federal responsibilities, it is the DOD’s status that FDA needs to aspire to. It is not such a big leap from protecting our nation against its physical enemies (people, weapons) to protecting the nation against acute and chronic disease and assuring a safe food supply.
We eventually will get a relatively clean CR, but it is more likely to be a photo-finish than a kumbaya moment. Members of Congress will be desperate to go home to campaign long before the CR gets enacted. In the meantime, we are going to watch carefully and learn from the Generals.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.