Appropriations Update: Navigating a Packed Congressional Agenda

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) recently introduced a six-month CR, but the vote was postponed due to opposition within the Republican ranks. Disagreements from various factions, including defense-focused members and fiscal conservatives, have created obstacles. Johnson is now working to gather more support, with the vote expected next week. However, the White House and Senate Democrats have rejected the six-month CR due to its inclusion of noncitizen voting policies from the SAVE Act and the exclusion of requested funding for disaster aid, veterans’ assistance, and the Social Security Administration. This sets the stage for bipartisan negotiations to settle on a compromise that can pass both chambers. 

A few appropriations leaders, including Senate Minority Whip John Thune, favor a CR that would extend funding only until December, rather than March, as a longer extension would leave military funding and other priorities uncertain. The preference for a shorter CR adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing negotiations. 

While CRs provide a temporary solution to keep the government funded, they come with significant drawbacks. A CR typically maintains funding at the previous year’s levels, limiting federal agencies’ ability to adapt to new challenges and priorities. This constraint is particularly impactful in areas such as scientific research, healthcare, and services for vulnerable populations. 

Several key appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2025 have already passed the full House. However, other critical bills important to FABBS members, like Labor-HHS-Education (Labor-H) and Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS), are still awaiting final passage. The Labor-H bill, which includes significant funding for public health and scientific research, remains in the preliminary stages. If funding is frozen at last year’s levels, essential initiatives could face delays or underfunding, potentially stalling progress in key areas such as research and medical programs. 

For additional context on the current appropriations process, you can refer to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) status of appropriations report. Additionally, our past appropriations update offers an overview of how these decisions impact the science budgets, which you can read here. For a deeper analysis of the history and consequences of CRs, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) provides an insightful resource worth exploring. 

[Click here to see FABBS’ Federal Funding Dashboard and here for letters FABBS has signed]