Are We There Yet? Appropriations Q&A for Mid-July 2024

Q: In an earlier Analysis and Commentary, you explained why the appropriations process almost invariably becomes a game of “hurry up and wait.” How does House and Senate committee action earlier this month affect that timeline?

A: Relative to the “hurry up and wait” paradigm (explained here), we are on schedule in the House (mark-ups in June/July) and ahead of schedule in the Senate (which usually runs 4 to 6 weeks behind the House).

Appropriators are cheered by the progress toward funding FY 25 before the fiscal year begins on October 1, 2024. 

Even still, I doubt that any Member of Congress believes that FY 25 funding bills will become law until later this year (after Election Day) or early next year. That has become the reality in most years and is seemingly inevitable in Presidential election years. 

Why “hurry up” then? Appropriators want to appropriate and set national priorities. They don’t want to admit that it can’t be done in a timely fashion. 

So, the Alliance (and other advocates) have to treat the current “hurry up” atmosphere on appropriations bills seriously. Final outcomes may not be resolved by October 1, but interim decisions made in June and July are often unchanged at the end of the process, even though we “wait” months for final resolution.  

Q: Something I liked (or didn’t like) was included in the House or Senate report language. What is the status of such provisions when the funding process is over? 

A: The final House-Senate conference report (or explanatory statement) usually incorporates the House and Senate reports by reference. The exception would be if the conference report contradicts or revises something from one of the two reports from earlier in the process.

Report language provides direction to FDA and is taken very seriously. The agency keeps track of report language and is responsible for telling Congress what FDA has done in response.  Often the agency complies literally, other times it shows how it addressed a concern in good faith. Report language does not have the force of law, so it is not binding on the agency. However, Congress’ control of purse strings is essential to agencies and they view seriously their obligation to be responsive to report language.

The text of FDA-related report language for FY 25 can be found: House (FDA section & funding section) and Senate (FDA section and funding section)


Q: Can you explain how FDA was “level-funded” in FY 24, but actually suffered a $150 million (4.5%) loss? What is the impact of that on the current FY 25 cycle? 

A:  FDA’s BA (non-user fee) appropriation was held at roughly the same level ($3.5 billion) from FY 23 to FY 24. This “level funding” was part of a large downward pressure in overall federal spending as well as in domestic discretionary funding.  

Within that level funding, FDA had to absorb the cost of mandatory pay raises ($105 million) and find $50 million in program funding that could be reallocated to pay for new initiatives. 

The downward funding pressures are still ongoing for FY 25. The House Appropriations Committee bill provided the FDA with about $22 million less in taxpayer money than FY 24. As a practical matter, the decrease is actually much larger because the diminished level of FY 25 funding will nonetheless need to fund new initiatives, program growth, mandatory salary increases, and other expenses. The net loss for the agency would be at least $150 million compared to the FY 24 final appropriations.

The Senate Appropriations Committee-adopted FY 25 Ag/FDA funding bill is an improvement, but it still leaves the agency with significantly less money than it will need in FY 25. It includes a small increase of $22 million in taxpayer spending. However, the Agency will still need well above that amount to pay for new initiatives, program growth, and mandatory salary increases. The net loss for the agency would be at least $100 million compared to the FY 24 final appropriations.

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