Q&A on the Continuing Resolution; Prospects for passage of omnibus FY 22 appropriations bills

This week’s Analysis and Commentary answers questions about the expiration of the Continuing Resolution on February 18 and prospects for passage of omnibus FY 22 appropriations bills.

Q: The Senate has proposed a $200 million increase for FDA in FY 22 and the comparable House number is a $257 million increase. Is it possible that FDA might still receive less than a $200 million increase?
A: Yes. If a full-year Continuing Resolution is adopted, FDA would be limited to its FY 21 spending level. The agency would receive no increase despite an enlarged mission and growing responsibilities.

Also, negotiations are not complete on total spending levels for FY 22 funding. It is possible the Ag/FDA subcommittees will receive a smaller allotment than when the House and Senate had their mark-ups. If the drop is substantial, then some/most programs in the subcommittee bill could receive smaller increases than those previously adopted.

Q: Are there reasons to be optimistic that FY 22 appropriations bills will be adopted?
A: Yes, there is a case for optimism. As difficult as it is right now to negotiate compromises in Congress, the FY 22 appropriations bills have two factors working in their favor. First, the Department of Defense hopes to receive a much larger increase than what was proposed by President Biden and passed by the House. Bipartisan support for the larger increase does seem to have momentum, especially considering the difficult geopolitical situation with Russia. A full-year CR at FY21 funding levels would be an even more inadequate response to the situation. The Pentagon (along with the entire defense community) is pushing hard against a year-long CR.

Second, the FY 22 funding bills contain notable Congressionally directed spending (i.e., earmarks), all of which would be lost if there is a full-year Continuing Resolution. Many Members consider that incentive enough to reach a deal on the FY 22 spending bill.

Q: Are there reasons to be pessimistic that FY 22 appropriations bills will be adopted?
A: Yes, there is a case for pessimism. Agreement on a topline number for total Federal discretionary spending continues to be elusive. The move toward much more defense spending than the President proposed, would likely result in lower spending allocations to subcommittees with non-Defense programs. That would likely erode Democratic support. Meantime, over the last couple of months—with the debate over the President’s Build Back Better reconciliation on the House and then Senate floor --Republicans have sharpened their rhetoric about too much federal spending. Apart from the need for more defense spending, Republicans might be satisfied with leaving non-defense spending at the FY 21 Trump levels.

Q: Why isn’t there more information available about the negotiations and prospects for FY 22 appropriations bills?
A: In most years, the level of total spending (and the defense/non-defense split within that total) is resolved by leadership instead of the budget committees. Increasingly, that has tended to merge with the appropriations process, creating an endgame made up of the four leaders and the four Appropriations Chairs/Ranking Members. It is a far-reaching negotiation, and everyone holds their cards close.

Editorial Note: The week’s Analysis and Commentary section was written by the Alliance’s Executive Director, Steven Grossman.