The Budget Deal - First Impressions from an FDA Perspective
The debt ceiling legislation (the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA)) has passed both the House and the Senate.
The legislation sets caps on discretionary federal spending for the next two fiscal years. For FY 24, defense spending is capped at $886 billion (the same as the President's request). Non-defense spending is capped at $704 billion (significantly below the President’s request). Within the non-defense limitation, VA medical care is set to be at least $121 billion and protected from any cuts.
The remaining amount for FY 24 (non-defense cap minus VA medical care) is $583 billion. Various appropriation adjustments are then made, including, for example, rescission of some COVID funds. As a result, non-defense, non-VA medical is–as a practical matter–capped at $637 billion, which is roughly flat compared to FY 23.
Given the complex interactions of different provisions, we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to “how much money is really available” for appropriators to spend on domestic discretionary programs. As a general matter, we can say:
All non-defense, non-veteran programs will be under increased funding pressures.
It will be harder to get increases and even current funding levels could be threatened for some agencies and programs.
This is never a good situation for agencies whose mission and responsibilities keep expanding each year, as is the case with FDA.
In last week’s Analysis and Commentary (here), we explained how macro-budgetary decisions in FRA (e.g. spending caps) translate into micro-budgetary decisions (e.g. how much is available to fund FDA).
Macro-budgetary decisions limit but do not determine micro-budgetary decisions. It is the Alliance’s job to continue its advocacy for the preservation and growth of FDA funding, regardless of the macro limitations.
The Ag/FDA Subcommittees will have a specific amount to spend in FY 24 (their 302(b) allocation). Hopefully, that exceeds the funds that it spent in FY23. Regardless, the Subcommittees will have to make choices–as they do every year–and they are most likely to favor the programs they know and value.
The Alliance’s outreach to the House and Senate (testimony, fact sheets, meetings with staffers, Hill Days) usually focuses on why FDA needs increased funding. This year we intentionally spent more time than in the past on the intrinsic value of FDA’s mission (“core function of government”).
After describing the breadth and depth of FDA’s responsibilities, we try to make three main points:
FDA provides a broad set of core governmental services as part of a uniquely difficult mission that impacts the lives of every American multiple times every day.
FDA needs more resources each year because of additional responsibilities, increasingly complex science and technology, globalization, and growth in regulated industries.
FDA’s mission and responsibilities are incredibly consequential and visible. It needs resources to protect public health and safety and to set standards for products that encompass 20% of all consumer spending (about $2.7 trillion).
The fight for FDA resources has become harder, but the benefits provided to the American people by the FDA have grown, not diminished.
During the House floor debate on the debt ceiling bill, several members said “more needs to be done”, “this is a first step”, and “more cuts need to be made”. The budget challenge for FDA is both immediate and likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
The Alliance can only continue this work if the FDA stakeholder community supports its aims and contributes to the cost. For more information about membership, please contact Alliance Executive Director, Steven Grossman.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.