Three Things We Heard in Senate-side Hill Meetings
Last week’s Analysis and Commentary (Three Things We Heard in House-side Hill Meetings) reflected what we heard in our House meetings:
FDA is important and worthy of Congressional support.
FDA will have difficulty securing additional funding in FY 25 due to severe budget constraints
By the nature of its responsibilities, FDA will always be under scrutiny and must demonstrate responsible stewardship for the taxpayer resources it receives
This week’s Senate meetings were remarkably consistent with these three messages, although they were often stated quite differently.
Here are some additional observations:
The Senate is less divided than the House about the need for additional funding for vital programs. There are deficit hawks in the Senate and plenty of differences among Republicans and Democrats about funding priorities. Nonetheless, there were easier conversations and more acceptance of the need for exceptions to possible deep cuts.
Senate staffers were concerned that subcommittee allocations might be so low as to force cuts in programs that Congress wanted to preserve or expand. We also heard this in our House meetings. The first so-called 302(b) subcommittee allocations --proposed by House Republican appropriators this week–would appear to bear out this concern. Senate 302(b) allocations are certain to be higher in the Senate, but still may be too low to fund all Senate priorities.
The timeframe for the FY 25 appropriations process is uncertain and often contradictory. Staffers are mostly working from what has been considered the default scenario: Congress passes a CR in September (or November) to keep the government funded until February or March. The winners of the 2024 election can then work their will on FY 25 federal spending.
At the moment, House and Senate Appropriations leaders seem intent on projecting that anything is possible, including moving funding bills in a deeply divided Congress in a Presidential election year.
Congress intuitively understands that safe food and safe and effective medicines come at a price that must be paid, but does not have a similar sense of why large increases continue to be necessary. When the Alliance started its advocacy 17 years ago, the entire agency–and every component part–were massively underfunded. Thanks to Congressional and Executive Branch support, FDA’s budget has grown significantly since then.
However, the FDA’s mission has expanded and its responsibilities grown…much faster than the agency’s budget has increased. In addition to new legislative mandates: science has become more complex; technology has unlocked benefits well-beyond anything imagined 15 years ago (e.g. digital health); food and medical products are now global markets; and the cost of well-trained scientists has multiplied.
As reported in the Advocacy At a Glance section of this Friday Update, there is a gathering storm of threats to FDA funding. I will write about this more in the coming weeks.
But please don’t wait: If the health and effectiveness of FDA are important to you, then consider joining the Alliance. It's that simple: the bigger our voice, the more impact we can have. Please contact me for information at sgrossman@strengthenfda.org or 301-257-9660.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.