Shutdown Threats: Second Verse Same as the First; FDA Budget Still at Risk
Last week’s Friday Update did not contain the usual Analysis and Commentary column. We promised instead to circulate a new Analysis and Commentary this week, as soon as the legislative and political situation became clearer. We are pleased that the current track should lead to a Continuing Resolution before the current one expires on November 17.
Over the last six weeks, Analysis and Commentary has examined the evolving FY 24 appropriations process and the impact on FDA (Recent Analysis and Commentary columns in the Alliance’s Friday Update)
For FDA’s needs, the short-term priority (Part 1 below) is avoiding a government shutdown on November 17 and the creation of a pathway for the orderly consideration of the FY 24 Ag/FDA appropriations bill.
The near- and long-term priority (Part 2 below) is to continue the flow of needed funding that is commensurate with FDA’s growing responsibilities.
Part 1: Shutdown Threats: Second Verse Same as the First
On October 13 (FY 24 Appropriations: House Options Limited Regardless of Who Becomes Speaker), we described the “[appropriations] pathway set by former Speaker McCarthy, which assumes 1/ an unlimited number of issues can be negotiated to a position that will command 217 Republican votes; 2/ brinkmanship over a government shutdown is an acceptable tactic; and 3/ no deal is acceptable if it relies on Democratic votes.”
Faced with the likelihood of a shutdown on October 1, Speaker McCarthy used a mix of Republican and Democratic votes to move a six-week Continuing Resolution (CR) at FY 23 funding levels and no policy riders. He lost his speakership for doing this.
Speaker Johnson faced the same “McCarthy moment” this week (November 14). He chose to advance a CR that is laddered (the CR runs out on two different dates for different sets of funding bills), but otherwise is set at the FY 23 funding level and contains no policy riders.
Democrats would prefer a CR that has a shorter life (to force action), does not ladder the duration of the CR, provides increased funds for WIC, and addresses President Biden’s supplemental request for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan.
Conservative Republicans would prefer a CR that forces deep funding cuts, contains policy riders, reduces the annual deficit, and jump-starts the process of shrinking government. This cannot achieve 217 Republican votes in the House because of internal Caucus disagreements about what programs to cut (and by how much) and which policy riders are priorities.
These same opposing viewpoints will clash again before a new January 19 CR deadline (for 4 funding bills including Ag/FDA) and before the February 2 CR deadline (for the remaining 8 funding bills).
Part 2: FDA Budget Still at Risk
Under the Johnson proposal, the CR covering the Ag/FDA funding bill will expire on January 19 and the hope is that the bill can be completed by that date.
The Senate-passed version of the Ag/FDA bill would fund FDA at FY 23 funding levels plus $20 million.
The opposing House bill passed out of committee in June with funding levels for FDA at the FY 23 level. Subsequently, a chairman’s amendment would have made substantial cuts in funding.
Because of those cuts and disagreements over FDA’s position on access to mifepristone, the Ag/FDA funding bill was readied for floor action three times, pulled back twice, and finally rejected on September 28 by a vote of 191-237.
In a sense, the Ag/FDA bill is a microcosm of disagreements within the Republican caucus.
Funding disagreements: The Committee-passed version funded FDA and other programs at or near their FY 23 funding levels. Subsequently, the Chairman’s amendment would have set most programs, including FDA, at 14.15% less than the FY 23 levels.
This creates problems for Republicans representing districts that benefit from agricultural and feeding programs. Even though WIC funding is exempted from the 14.15% reduction, it is another known area of contention. Further, there is no evidence that Republicans want to shrink FDA by nearly $500 million–but that is what could occur nonetheless.
Policy riders: all the House Republican funding bills contain problematic policy riders. The Ag/FDA bill contains a provision reversing a long-ago FDA action that increased access to the abortion drug mifepristone. There are neither 217 Republican votes if the provision stays in the Ag/FDA funding bill nor 217 Republican votes if the provision is dropped.
The proposed Ag/FDA funding cuts are best understood within the larger pattern of funding levels proposed in the House:
Ultimately, I believe that FDA will wind up at or near the Senate position for FY 24 funding. However, there is no guarantee of that outcome, as long as deep across-the-board cuts are still a possibility.
In this environment, the Alliance and the FDA stakeholder community cannot assume that FDA funding is fine. While we are hopeful of an okay outcome, the agency’s budget is still very much at risk.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.