Congressional negotiators are working quickly to move billions of dollars in federal funding, but debates are raging over a wide range of prickly issues. 

With less than three months until a government shutdown cutoff date, and a month of recess scheduled in the interim, Congress is staring down a tight deadline to pass its 12 annual appropriations bills and commence bicameral negotiations on funding.

Here are five spending battles to watch as the process heats up.

Spending top lines

Hard-line conservatives have been dialing up pressure on Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to take an aggressive stance on cutting federal spending for fiscal 2024 at levels significantly below the budget caps in a deal he struck with President Biden more than a month ago.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated earlier this year that the budget caps enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) could help reduce projected deficits by about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But conservatives say steeper cuts are necessary, as the CBO projects federal debt held by the public will equal 115 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the next 10 years.

In a letter to McCarthy earlier this month, a group of 21 conservatives told the Speaker they cannot support appropriations bills that produce a top-line spending level “effectively in line with the cap set by the debt ceiling deal that we opposed and was supported by more Democrats than Republicans.” They added that they instead expect all appropriations bills “to be in line” with the enacted fiscal year 2022 top-line level, as the House GOP conference has previously pressed for.

But that demand lays the groundwork for a clash with the Democratic-led Senate, where appropriators have instead been working off top lines more aligned with the FRA.

Ukraine

Shortly after the FRA’s passage, chatter emerged about the potential need for supplemental funding for Ukraine, as defense hawks in the upper chamber raised concerns about what the measure would mean for defense dollars.

At the time, McCarthy brushed off the criticisms, signaling that aid for Ukraine would likely need to be addressed during the annual appropriations process instead of in a separate bill.

“The question to me is … Why would you do a supplemental? We just passed an agreement. You work through the [appropriations process]. They’re trying to go around the agreement,” McCarthy said in early June.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) warned not long after McCarthy’s comments that Ukraine would probably need further assistance, while calling defense “radically underfunded related to the Chinese threat.”

The House last week rejected five proposed amendments to an annual defense policy bill that would have cut aid to or U.S. involvement in Ukraine.

But dozens of Republicans still voted in favor of the amendments. In their recent letter to McCarthy, a number of conservatives urged the leader to publicly reject the possibility of a “supplemental Ukraine appropriations bill,” as some Republicans have targeted the aid.  

Rescissions

House GOP appropriators have called for rescinding more than $115 billion in funding previously allocated to agencies like the IRS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration and others.

The push comes after Republicans saw some success in clawing back funding previously allocated by Democrats for the IRS and the nation’s coronavirus response as part of the FRA.

“During the 117th Congress, the majority party spent trillions of dollars outside the regular appropriations process for non-defense programs,” House appropriators said when announcing the plans earlier this year. “While the FRA successfully recouped some of those resources, tens of billions remain unspent. The effort to claw back those funds can, and should, continue.”

The move is likely to be met with opposition from Democrats when bicameral negotiations pick up.

But it could also cause problems with conservatives in the House, who are warning against proposals to repurpose rescinded funds to increase discretionary spending above fiscal 2022 levels.

FBI headquarters

Democrats from Maryland and Virginia have previously garnered attention for butting heads over where the next FBI headquarters should be located — but that fight could get a lot more complicated as some Republicans target funding for the agency. 

In a letter to House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) that drew attention last week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) recommended that appropriations bills “eliminate any funding for the FBI that is not absolutely essential for the agency to execute its mission, including as a starting point eliminating taxpayer funding for any new FBI headquarter facility.”

The letter instead called for “examining options for relocating the FBI’s headquarters outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area,” while proposing the consideration of “existing resources and infrastructure available at the FBI’s Redstone Arsenal Campus in Huntsville, AL.”

The move has already ruffled feathers with Democrats, including Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who downplayed the effort’s chances of success in impacting relocation efforts, telling The Hill: “I don’t believe it’s likely they’ll succeed.”

Abortion 

House Republicans have also been ramping up focus on policies taking aim at abortion access in must-pass bills, including targeting the military’s reimbursement for abortion-related travel.

In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Roe v. Wade, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the department would reimburse service members for travel expenses to obtain an abortion in a move that has since sparked fierce blowback from Republicans. 

House Republicans targeted the policy in their proposed defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2024, as well as in the National Defense Authorization Act that passed the lower chamber mostly along party lines last week.

Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration spending bill advanced by the House Appropriations Committee last month included a provision rolling back a policy that allows pharmacists to dispense a drug used for abortions. The full committee also advanced the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (VA) funding bill that included a ban on VA medical centers performing abortions.