“Hurry Up and Wait” and Other Appropriations Questions

Q: With regard to appropriations, what does it mean to “hurry up and wait?”

A: Appropriators want to appropriate. That’s their job. Whether they succeed or not, their goal is to have the entirety of the federal government funded by appropriations bills. No continuing resolutions!

As everyone knows, it rarely works out that way. 

Nonetheless, there is no hope of being done by September 30 unless appropriations bills are being marked up in the House subcommittees and full committees in June and July, followed by action in the full House. Appropriation bills must originate in the House and the Senate typically acts about 4 to 6 weeks later. 

For the FY 25 budget cycle, it is widely assumed that election-year politics will require a CR on September 30. Depending on how the election goes, appropriations will wrap up in a lame-duck session or early next year. 

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 may hold sway even if we ultimately end up “waiting” months for final resolution.  

Q: Can you explain how FDA was “level-funded” in FY 24, but actually suffered a $150 million (4.5%) loss?

A: FDA’s BA (non-user fee) appropriation was held at the same level ($3.5 billion) from FY 23 to FY 24. That is despite an Administration request for more than a $370 increase for the agency. HHS and OMB clearly agreed that FDA’s responsibilities were growing quickly and needed more support. 

In the face of that, Congress provided FDA with the same $3.5 billion budget it had in FY 23. This level funding was part of a large downward pressure in overall federal spending as well as in domestic discretionary funding. My understanding is that there were some areas (e.g. veterans) that did better than FDA, but many did worse.  

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. 

Since the downward funding pressures are likely to be greater in FY 25, one of the Alliance’s greatest fears is that the same downward pressures will result in another year of level funding that has an embedded loss built in. 

Q: Why has the Alliance started to distinguish mandatory salary increases from program initiatives? 

A: FDA received $3.54 billion in BA funding in FY 23. The President’s FY 24 request proposed adding $377 million to that sum. That would have resulted in an increase of more than $250 million in new program initiatives and program expansion and $105 million to pay for mandatory pay increases. 

The President’s FY 25 request–for an increase of $170 million–proposes $115 million in mandatory salary increases and only $55 million for new program initiatives and program expansion. 

It is disheartening and concerning that the President’s proposed increase for new program initiatives and program expansion has fallen from $250 million to just $55 million between the two years. It is even more disheartening that Congress may reduce it even further.

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