Q&A on Senate Appropriations Markup

(last week’s Q&A on House Appropriations Markup)

Q: Was the Senate markup (of 302(b) subcommittee allocations, the Military Construction/VA bill and the Ag/FDA bill) bipartisan? 

A: The 302(b) subcommittee allocations were adopted with only votes from Democratic Senators. However, that interaction seemed more pro-forma than truly partisan. This is unlike last week’s House Appropriations Committee markup, where the partisan vote on 302(b) allocations was accompanied by heated debate.

The Military Construction and Ag/FDA funding bills were the products of Democratic and Republican negotiations at the subcommittee level and were adopted unanimously. The bills were also praised for the spirit of cooperation that made them possible. 

Q: Is there any significance to the Ag/FDA appropriations being the second bill (out of 12) to move forward in the House and Senate appropriations committees?

A: Yes. Both the House and Senate have traditionally led with the bills they consider least controversial and easiest to pass. In the past, Ag/FDA has usually been in the top half, but most often 4th or 5th to be considered. 

Q: What really happened this week in the Senate Appropriations Committee markup? 

A: As with the House Appropriation Committee mark-up last week, the most significant part of the Senate mark-up was that the FY 24 appropriations process moved forward. It also represented a revitalization of the public role of the committee since the full Senate Appropriations Committee last marked up a funding bill two years ago in the FY 2022 cycle.  

There were repeated references–by multiple Senators of both parties–to the FRA as a deal between House Speaker McCarthy and the White House, to which the Senate is now reluctantly bound. 

It was impossible to miss the breadth and depth of Senate unhappiness with the FRA. Both Chairman Patty Murray (D-WA) and Vice Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) expressed dissatisfaction with the low funding levels and the consequences for defense, homeland security, and domestic programs. The comments of other Senators reinforced this.

Q: Was there any indication that Senate dissatisfaction with the FRA might coalesce into a bipartisan Senate proposal to modify FRA? 

A: Since the FRA passed so recently, this was, arguably, the first time Democrats and Republicans had a public opportunity to express their concerns in one forum. 

Several Senators–on both sides of the aisle–suggested that the FRA numbers will ultimately need to be adjusted to address funding needs that cannot otherwise be met. That runs in the opposite direction of the House, where Republicans have already set spending levels well below the negotiated ceilings in the FRA. This is considered a fluid situation. 

Senators voiced concerns about the global geo-political aspects of this year’s appropriations process. One Senator suggested that Russia and China were watching closely, rooting for another impasse like the debt limit debate. Other Senators focused on the military challenge to support Ukraine and to maintain naval dominance over China within the budget.  

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) offered a different perspective on fiscal responsibility. He pointed out that the debt limit negotiations left 85% of federal expenditures untouched. This mirrors one of our prior commentaries: FDA and the Iron Triangle of Deficit Reduction.  

Q: What is “regular order appropriations?”

A: The Budget Control Act envisions an orderly process that starts with the State of the Union (SOTU) and the President’s Budget Request. That process continues through hearings, mark-ups and the setting of spending ceilings (in total and by subcommittee). 

The 12 appropriations bills then receive House and Senate consideration, are passed, and gain House/Senate conference agreement. Final spending bills are sent to the President for signature by September 30 or earlier.

This straightforward process, called “regular order appropriations,” was last achieved more than a decade ago. Nonetheless, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) creates a set of penalties if all 12 appropriations bills are not completed by January 1, 2024: the discretionary spending caps for all bills are reduced to 1% below the prior year’s level.  These cuts are repealed if all 12 bills are subsequently enacted.

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