FY 24 Appropriations: House Options Limited Regardless of Who Becomes Speaker
At press time, the withdrawal of Majority Leader Scalise has left the House without an identified candidate or candidates to be Speaker of the House. The question has become: what House Member can garner 217 votes to be Speaker and present a path forward on budget and appropriations that can also command 217 votes?
Regardless of who becomes Speaker, there are limited options available to House Republicans. All of them leave open the question of what happens when the CR expires on November 17.
The Current Pathway. With great difficulty, the House can continue along the 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. This hasn’t worked, but perhaps whomever is selected as Speaker can make it work in a way that Speaker McCarthy could not.
“Let’s Get Back to Work” option. This is a bit ill-defined but appears to have the following elements: 1/ the House should put its entire focus on the passage of all 12 individual appropriations bills and load those bills with House Republican priorities; 2/ those bills should have total spending levels that are significantly less than the ceilings set in the Fiscal Responsibility Act; 3/ the key to success is hanging tough when House and Senate bills are conferenced. This approach appears to take CR brinkmanship off the table, but nobody seems to be saying that explicitly.
The “One Percent” Solution. This approach is based on the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA/2023) that was negotiated earlier this year to resolve the dispute over raising the ceiling on previously-incurred federal debt. FRA also sets total spending limits for the FY 24 budget cycle and creates consequences if Congress cannot agree on a complete package of FY 24 funding bills by March 31, 2024. If they cannot, on April 1, every government agency will have its FY 24 appropriation set at the FY 23 levels minus 1%. This was viewed as providing incentives to both parties to negotiate.
As part of his bid to be speaker, Representative Jordan proposed a Continuing Resolution through March 31, 2024, then let the 1% cut go into effect if Congress failed to pass all 12 appropriations bills. That would give the House and Senate ample time to examine the spending in each bill and provide floor time for discussion of funding provisions that are seen as “buried in omnibus and minibus” bills.
FDA (along with all government agencies) has a stake in how this is resolved.
The most important short-term goal is to avoid a shutdown at midnight on November 17, which is just 5 weeks away. Last-minute CR extensions are better than a shutdown, but the recent brinkmanship impacted FDA productivity and undercut employee morale, retention, and recruitment.
A better-defined FY 24 appropriations pathway with timetables for resolution would also be of great value to FDA and other federal agencies. For FY 24, the fiscal year we are already in, FDA faces possible outcomes from +11% (+ $400 million) in the Administration’s Request to -14% (-$500 million) in the most recent FY 24 Ag/FDA bill that failed to pass the House on September 28. Independent of outcome, every agency would value a narrower range of options and a clearer timeframe for resolution.
Final thought. It is not my place to suggest what the House should do, but I can hope that senior Republicans recognize that the current path has not been working and alternative approaches need to be considered.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.