Q&A on House Appropriations Markup
Q: What really happened this week in the House Appropriations Committee markup?
A: The most significant part of the House markup was that the process moved forward.
It is now clear that the debt limit deal narrowed the FY 24 budget debate but in no way resolved it. There are fundamental spending issues that are still in play and will be difficult for Congress to decide.
A potential government shutdown later this year is a realistic assessment of the impasse, as viewed today. There are still 3.5 months before the new fiscal year starts. The House Committee action makes it a bit more likely the impasse will be addressed by September/October and not December.
Q: What has changed since the budget deal that creates an impasse and increases the likelihood of a shutdown?
A: By setting caps that House and Senate Republican and Democrat leaders had agreed upon, the budget deal was supposed to avoid an impasse for FY 24. However, the House Appropriations Committee has now adopted cumulative subcommittee allocations that result in non-defense discretionary (NDD) programs being $119 billion below the caps.
That sets up a potential impasse because of the consequences of an outsized cut in non-defense spending. As we described in an earlier column (FDA and the Iron Triangle of Deficit Reduction), NDD is too small a proportion of government spending to bear the entire burden of the cuts being called for by Republicans.
Q: What is the impact on FDA of deeper cuts in NDD?
A: We explained macro versus micro budgetary considerations (here) and applied them to FDA in The Budget Deal - First Impressions from an FDA Perspective.
Our conclusion was that macro-budgetary decisions (e.g. budget caps) limit but do not determine micro-budgetary decisions (how much money FDA receives). It is the Alliance’s job to continue its advocacy for the preservation and growth of FDA funding, regardless of the macro limitations.
Q: What is the Alliance telling Congress?
A: The Alliance continues to deliver our messages about the importance of FDA and the dangers and risks of an underfunded agency. Our key themes are:
FDA delivers a core government service
FDA’s actions are consequential and visible
FDA needs more resources to fulfill its expanding mission and growing responsibilities.
Underfunding FDA is a threat to public health and commerce.
Q: What can I do to help FDA receive the monies it needs?
A: Tell Congress! For many FDA stakeholders, agency funding is important, but not the issue they raise first when they communicate with Congress. However understandable that is, the result is that Congress does not hear enough about why FDA’s budget needs to keep growing and why it matters to the health and well-being of all Americans. Please add FDA funding and a strong FDA to the list of topics you talk about with Members of Congress and their staff.
Support the Alliance for a Stronger FDA! It can only continue its 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.