Hurry Up then Wait = Focus Shifts to CR in September

With this week’s upheaval in the Presidential election and the House’s decision to start recess a week early, it has been a frustrating five days watching reporters and analysts draw large, often wildly off-target conclusions from single events and pieces of information.

It feels like everything is being interpreted “in the moment” without regard to context and precedent (or lack of precedent)...and without appreciation of the inherently unpredictable nature of dynamic situations. How many people knew what “brat green” was before this week? Of those that did, how many foresaw the possible consequences of Kamala Harris being declared “brat” and Donald Trump not? (For those not in the know, here is the Fox News explanation.)

In comparison to elections, the appropriations process is fairly predictable and staid. Yet, it is still susceptible to “in the minute-isms,” narrow interpretation of events, and a lack of appreciation for dynamics. 

For example, we have been writing for weeks about “hurry up and wait” in the appropriations cycle. Yet, we saw stories this week that made it seem like passage of all 12 appropriations bills in the House by August was a realistic goal or that somehow the “and wait” phase wouldn’t inevitably come. Ditto for stories that make it seem like a defeat that Congress will turn its attention to a CR in September. 

Based on the House’s failure to pass all 12 bills, another publication did a story asking: is the appropriations process broken?  Consider however that having all 12 bills done by October 1 last occurred 15-20 years ago. Nothing that has happened this week (or this cycle) makes the appropriations process any more or less broken than it was a year ago or five years ago. 

So, with full confidence and zero amazement, we can predictably tell our readers that Congress will continue to do odds and ends to move appropriations bills but the only thing that matters in September will be passing a Continuing Resolution. Arguably, that was already “fact” in March.

The odds and ends can be defined as: appropriations bills will move only if they put no House Republican Member in jeopardy on Election Day. For example, many conservative Republican Members feel they can’t vote favorably on Agriculture/FDA funding legislation unless restrictions on Mifepristone are included. At the same time, some moderate Republicans can’t vote for such restrictions–perhaps not at all in good conscience, but certainly not before Election Day.

So, all of these difficult funding bills will have to wait for November at the earliest. Ignore the September news stories and analysis that suggest a CR is a last resort when Congress realizes that they have run out of legislative days to pass appropriations bills. That has been true for months. 

It is all part of the “hurry up and wait” that is the primary appropriations story in  most years and especially in a year with a Presidential election.

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