Walensky: Vaxxed People Don’t Need to Mask Up for Delta
In a June 30 interview on Good Morning America, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky said fully vaccinated people are safe from the Delta variant of COVID-19 and do not need to wear masks. Walensky’s comments follow recommendations issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) on June 25 that urge even fully vaccinated people to wear masks and practice social distancing. According to former Senior Advisor to the COVID-19 Response Coordinator Andy Slavitt, the differences between the WHO and CDC guidance can be attributed to the fact that the former concerns the entire globe, where vaccination rates in most countries are rather low, while the latter concerns the US, where vaccination rates are relatively higher. Still, some jurisdictions are adding their own recommendations on top of the CDC’s. On June 28, Los Angeles public health authorities recommended that all residents wear masks indoor regardless of vaccination status out of concern for the more transmissible Delta variant. Similarly, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker suggested on June 29 that Illinois vaccinated residents consider masking up if they enter a “very crowded area.” However, neither jurisdiction has officially reinstated a mask mandate.
Researcher Say It’s Okay to Mix COVID-19 Vaccines
A study from Oxford University released on June 29 found mixing doses of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine and AstraZeneca’s viral vector vaccine yielded a strong immune response against COVID-19. According to the study, a dose of AstraZeneca and a dose of Pfizer administered four weeks apart regardless of order generated higher T-cells and antibodies than the standard two-dose AstraZeneca regimen. The study’s findings come as more and more public health experts say a booster shot of Pfizer or Moderna’s mRNA vaccine may be needed to augment the protection offered from Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine, which is also based on viral vector technology.
Biden Administration Announces New Proposals to Boost ACA Enrollment
On June 28, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced several plans to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its proposed rule, which sets forth the proposed revised 2022 user fees for insurers offering plans on the ACA exchanges. Among the changes the Administration is proposing includes extending open enrollment season by 30 days, eliminating the sign-up window for Americans who earn under 150% of the federal poverty level, and providing navigators $80 million for the next enrollment season by increasing insurers’ user fees by half a percentage point. CMS is also notably proposing to reverse a policy finalized earlier this year by the previous Administration that would have allowed states to turn their insurance marketplaces over to private brokers and agents.
ICER: New Alzheimer’s Drug Not Effective Enough to Justify High Price
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) issued a revised evidence report on June 30 saying that Biogen’s recently approved Alzheimer’s drug, Aduhelm (aducanumab), isn’t effective enough to legitimize its $56,000 price tag. Instead, the group says the drug should be valued at $3,000 to $8,400 per year for patients with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. The group also found that Aduhelm’s “harms outweigh any potential benefits” for patients with more severe Alzheimer’s. Aduhelm has come under increased scrutiny after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug despite the fact that one of the Aduhelm’s two phase 3 clinical trials failed to show positive efficacy.
Pew: Suburban Voters, White Men, and Independents Helped Biden Win
A new analysis of the 2020 president election by Pew Research Center found that a larger share of suburban voters, white men, and independents helped deliver a victory to Joe Biden, while Republicans gained the support of more Hispanic voters. Pew’s report is considered more accurate than exit polls because it matches survey data with state voter records.
ICYMI: Intelligence Officials Can’t Explain UFOs
On June 25, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a highly-anticipated report on UFOs, or unidentified ariel phenomena (UAP) in the military’s parlance. Out of 144 UAP sightings listed, the report was only able to come up with an explanation for one, which was ultimately identified as a “large, deflating balloon.” According to the report, the other 143 unexplained sightings fall into one of five categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, US government developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a “catchall ‘other’ bin.” The report notably states that UAPs may pose a challenge to national security, and the number of incidents may be under-reported due to the stigma associated with UFOs.
On June 29, House appropriators signed off on a report to look into whether Members of Congress deserve a pay raise. Does that mean their staff should get a pay raise, too?
In Washington, DC, the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,630. That’s a tough pill to swallow if you’re a young congressional staffer barely making over $30,000 a year. The cost of living in the Washington, DC metropolitan area has soared in recent years while salaries for Hill staffers have barely budged, contributing to what some have observed as high turnover and low diversity among congressional staff.
How Staff Are Paid
Each Member of the House of Representatives receives a Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA), which supports Representatives in their official duties. The MRA is funded through the House “Salaries and Expenses” account in the annual Legislative Branch appropriations bill. It is calculated into three components: personnel, official office expenses, and official (franked) mail. Each component is combined into a single MRA reauthorization that can be used to pay for any type of expense, such as staff or travel. While the personnel amount is the same for each member, official office and franked mail expenses vary depending on the distance between the Representative’s district and Washington, DC. Each Representative may use the MRA to employ no more than 18 permanent employees, an amount that been unchanged since 1975. Members are permitted to distribute staff salaries as they see fit and usually interns and entry-level staff receive the lowest compensation, while senior staff receive higher salaries. For many House staffers, maximum salaries have been unchanged since 2009.
Similar to their counterparts in the House, Members of the Senate receive a Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA) to assist in official duties that is funded through the “Contingent Expenses of the Senate” account in the annual Legislative Branch appropriations bill. The SOPOEA also consists of three categories (administrative and clerical assistance, legislative assistance, and official office expense) that are combined and may be used for any official expense, including staff salaries. Typically, salaries for Senate staffers are higher than those for House staffers. The SOPOEA saw a decrease in funding from FY 2010 to FY 2014 and remained the same from FY 2014 to FY 2017 before seeing a small increase in FY 2018.
Below is a chart listing average salaries for key House and Senate staff positions.
Position
House
Senate
Chief of Staff
$153,302
$170,278
Press Secretary
$62,515
$75,842
Scheduler
$56,270
$78,420
Legislative Director
$89,589
$141,886
Legislative Counsel
$70,871
$95,611
Legislative Assistant
$56,741
$80,594
Legislative Correspondent
$45,457
$49,221
Staff Assistant
$41,961
$42,814
Again, these figures are averages, and actual salaries can vary widely between congressional offices. In the House, for example, staff assistants surveyed made between $29,000 and $67,333 per year as of 2019. Additionally, not all House and Senate staffers receive their salaries from MRAs and SOPOEAs respectively, as the Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides separate funding accounts for both leadership and committee staff. In the House and Senate, leadership offices are funded as individual line items, such as the Office of the Speaker and the Offices of the [Senate] Majority and Minority Leaders. Additionally, House committees are funded under a “Committee Employees” account, while the Senate has separate accounts for the Appropriations Committee, Conference Committees, and Policy Committees.
The Impact on Staffers
While salaries for congressional staff have barely changed over the past decade, financial pressures on Hill staffers have grown considerably. In addition to the National Capital Region’s skyrocketing housing costs, many staffers are seeing more and more of their hard-earned dollars go towards paying off student loan debt to cover rising college tuition. High childcare costs in the Washington, DC area are an additional financial burden on staffers who are parents of young children.
All these pressures have implications for the congressional workforce, including:
High turnover. Many staffers find salaries on Capitol Hill to be unsustainably low, leaving them to seek out better paying positions in the private sector, especially with lobbying firms, law firms, consulting firms, and trade associations. Many staffers also seek higher paying positions in the executive branch. High turnover also limits the ability of congressional offices to retain institutional knowledge, as staffers who gain expertise in a particular policy take what they’ve learned off the Hill.
Lack of diversity. Staffers from more affluent backgrounds are better able to afford the Washington, DC area’s high cost of living, while staffers from lower-income backgrounds may eschew continued service on Capitol Hill out of economic necessity.
Despite salary concerns, staff may find that there are certain benefits to working on the Hill. For instance, staff may have access to a student loan repayment program that provides up to $10,000 in assistance per year, similar to a program for executive branch employees. The loan repayment program comes with a number of caveats, however, only federal student loans are applicable, and staffers participating in the program must stay in their offices for at least a year. Additionally, individual offices may have their own policies on loan repayment, like giving all staff members a set amount of money or using a sliding scale based on tenure or income. Furthermore, the more staff an office has, the fewer dollars it is able individually offer for loan repayment.
Staff also have access to childcare centers affiliated with the House, Senate, Library of Congress, and Government Accountability Office. However, these childcare centers have very long waitlists.
It should be noted that people do not pursue jobs on Capitol Hill only because of the pay. Being a congressional staffer is highly desirable due to the unique experience the position offers, and it’s not uncommon for vacancies for entry- and junior-level positions in the House or Senate to attract dozens or hundreds of qualified applicants. Working on the Hill can be seen as a steppingstone to a more lucrative positions in the private sector or the Executive Branch. Despite the strong desirability of congressional jobs, low salaries are still likely to contribute to high turnover, as the average tenure for a Capitol Hill staffer is just over three years.
What’s Being Done?
Fortunately, concerns over staff salaries have yielded some changes. By 2019, paid internships once again became a reality for many House and Senate offices after cuts to MRAs and SOPOEAs in 2011 forced offices to make many internships unpaid as a cost-cutting measure. Thanks to the FY 2019 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, each individual House office has a pool of $20,000 it can spend on intern compensation annually, while the amount offered to Senate offices depends on state size. The reintroduction of paid internships to Capitol Hill was part of a multi-year effort to allow individuals from a more diverse range of socioeconomic backgrounds to be introduced to a career in public service. However, workforce diversity issues remain a concern. According to a report issued in May 2021, most interns on Capitol Hill were white and had attended private universities.
Some Members have taken it upon themselves to pay staff more. In 2019, then-freshman Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced that all of her staff would be a paid a minimum of $52,000 to handle high living expenses in the Washington, DC area. To make this high minimum salary possible, Ocasio-Cortez capped salaries for senior positions in her office at $80,000. Other House offices have yet to adopt Ocasio-Cortez’s compensation model, possibly out of concern that lower salaries for senior positions could make it more challenging to attract top talent. However, the New York Congresswoman may be in a better position to attract high-quality senior staff due to her status has a high-profile Representative.
Recently, House Democratic leaders have been making a more substantive push to boost staff salaries. In April 2021, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) sent a letter to top Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee requesting a 20% increase in the MRA. In their letter, Hoyer and Jeffries say higher salaries would allow House offices to compete with better-paying private sector employers for top talent and allow current staff a better shot at achieving economic security in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
Additionally, in May 2021, Hoyer and Jeffries teamed up with House Administration Committee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) to study whether expanded benefits should be included in the FY 2022 Legislative Branch appropriations bill to further boost staff recruitment and retention efforts. Some of the benefits under consideration include reimbursement for adoption or fertility treatment, first-time homebuyer assistance, and a 529 college savings plan.
What Will Happen Next?
It seems that calls to increase staffer pay are finally being heard, at least in the House. On June 29, the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee favorably report its FY 2022 appropriations bill, which contains a 21% increase to the MRA, as well as a boost to the paid internship program. This might prove to be the first step in ushering in higher pay for Hill staffers. On the Senate side, there doesn’t appear to be much momentum to increase staff salaries, which are still somewhat higher than they are in the House. Some members may be concerned about the optics of raising the MRA, as it could lead to criticism that congressional staffers are getting a pay boost at the expense of taxpayers. Still, if a desire to address the high cost-of-living in the DC area and increase diversity was enough to provide funding for interns, it might be enough to provide a much-needed pay raise for Hill staffers.
Every year, you get your flu shot. Will the same be said for COVID-19 shots? No one knows for sure, but federal officials and public health experts are weighing in on whether certain people might need COVID-19 booster shots as soon as this fall. With questions about the longevity of vaccine-induced immunity and the potential for vaccine-eluding variants still unanswered, it certainly does not hurt to prepare.
What Is the Administration Planning?
On May 11, David Kessler, MD, Chief Science Officer of the White House COVID-19 Response Team, told a Senate panel that the Biden Administration is preparing for the possibility of booster shots for people who do not have a robust or long-lasting immunity, or if new variants evade protection from previously-administered vaccines. Kessler said the booster shots would likely be a third shot of Pfizer or Modern’s mRNA vaccine rather than a new shot tailored to emerging variants. He also confirmed that the booster shots would be free to Americans and funded by congressional appropriations through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. Since Kessler’s testimony, the Administration purchased 200 million additional doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine in June to vaccinate children or to serve as a booster shot for adults. Any decision to use booster shots would be up to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Kessler’s testimony was not the first time someone raised the possibility that people vaccinated against COVID-19 could need booster shots in the future. In February, Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky said COVID-19 booster shots may be needed annually, like flu shots. Similarly, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in April that people will likely need a third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine within 12 months of being fully vaccinated.
How Long Does Immunity from Vaccines Last?
Since the vaccines were just developed in 2020, experts say only time will tell how long protection from the vaccines will last. Of the few studies conducted so far, research from the New England Journal of Medicine published in April 2021 found Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine can produce strong antibody protection for at least six months following the second dose. Pfizer also announced research findings in April confirming its vaccine’s efficacy six months after the second dose.
However, new research suggests it could be for a year or longer. A pair of studies published in May 2021 found that the B-cells of people infected with COVID-19 still continued to mature and strengthen one year after infection, suggesting some type of immune response. More recently, a study published in the journal Nature in June suggested immunity from mRNA vaccines could last for years.
What about the Variants?
However, many of these studies were conducted before the Delta variant became more prevalent. Public health experts say the Delta variant, which was first discovered in India in October 2020, is 43-90% more transmissible than previous COVID-19 variants, leading some to believe that currently-approved vaccine are less efficacious against the Delta variant. A recent study said the Delta variant could become dominant in the US by mid-July.
Fortunately, the vaccines still offer strong protection. According to a study by Oxford University researchers, two doses of the Pfizer vaccine appears to provide 79% protection against the Delta variant, compared to 92% against the Alpha variant, which is currently the dominant variant in the US, and was first discovered in the United Kingdom in September 2020. Since the Moderna vaccine uses the same mRNA technology as Pfizer’s, it can be inferred that two Moderna doses offer the same levels of protection as the Pfizer vaccine provides against the Delta variant.
But what about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine? Compared to its Moderna and Pfizer counterparts, the single-dose vaccine has been administered far less, meaning public health officials have little data regarding its effectiveness against the Delta variant. However, experts say a Johnson & Johnson vaccine is better than no vaccine at all, and that one dose is likely effective at protecting a recipient against serious illness or death. Additionally, former Senior Advisor to the COVID-19 Response Coordinator Andy Slavitt has said that recipients of the Johnson & Johnson could take a single mRNA booster shot now for added protection.
Nonetheless, just because the current vaccines remain effective against the Delta variant does not mean they are necessarily guaranteed to be effective against future variants. As explained by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky on June 22, the Delta variant represents a “set of mutations” of COVID-19, and future mutations could produce a variant that evades protection from vaccines. However, scientists say it’s unlikely a variant will arise that will make COVID-19 vaccines totally unless. While vaccines appear to offer diminishing protection from being infected from newer COVID-19 variants, they still appear effective at preventing hospitalization and death.
The Jury Is Still Out
The point of vaccines is to protect people from serious illness and death, and until fully vaccinated individuals are finding themselves with infections severe enough to require hospitalization, is it difficult to predict when booster shots will be needed and how often. In an interview on May 21, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci said the need for booster shots is still unclear. The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reached a similar conclusion on June 24, saying there currently is not enough data to determine booster shots are needed, although the panel did not rule out the possibility of requiring booster shots if immunity wanes or new variants render existing vaccines less effective. Considering this risk, the evolving nature of the virus, and the pain the world has already experienced at the hand of COVID-19, the US government has every reason to prepare for the worst and continue this conversation around COVID-19 booster shots.
President, Senators Reach Tentative Deal on Infrastructure
On June 24, President Joe Biden and a bipartisan group of 21 Senators reached an agreement on a sweeping $1.2 trillion infrastructure package that includes $579 billion in spending on physician infrastructure projects to improve roads, rail, broadband internet, and utilities. With the backing of 11 moderate Republican Senators and 10 Democratic Senators, the proposal could presumably pass the Senate with the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster, provided all Democratic Senators support the measure. However, Biden announced will only sign a physical infrastructure bill if a “human infrastructure” bill that support investments in childcare, paid leave, and caregiving is advanced in tandem. The latter proposal contains policies popular with Democrats that can only likely pass the Senate through budget reconciliation.
White House Projects It Will Miss July 4th Vaccination Goal
On June 22, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeff Zeints said the US is unlikely to meet its goal of at least partially vaccinating 70% of adults by July 4th. In recent weeks, the pace of vaccinations has slowed, particularly in the South and Midwest and among Americans aged 19-26. At the moment, 70% of Americans aged 30 and up have received at least one dose. Public health officials are urging all Americans to get vaccinated as the more contagious Delta variant spreads.
Senate Republicans Block Voting Rights Bill
Senate Republicans invoked the filibuster to block Democrats’ For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights package that aimed to create national standards for early voting, ban partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, and create a new public campaign financing system. According to Senate GOP leaders, the bill represents a “power grab” that would undermine states’ abilities to oversee elections and pave the way for permanent Democratic control of Congress. While Democrats contend their efforts on voting reform are far from over, there does not appear to be a strategy to realistically advance voting rights legislation so as long as the filibuster remains in place.
CDC ACIP Says Heart Inflammation an “Extremely Rare Side Effect”
On June 23, members of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) determined cases of heart inflammation in adolescents and young adults are likely related to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna. According to the CDC, there have been 1,226 reports of heart inflammation following the administration of roughly 300 million mRNA vaccine doses. Fortunately, the cases were reported to be mild and resolved quickly. Based on this information, ACIP members concluded that the side effects are “extremely rare” and urged all eligible people to continue to be vaccinated.
ICYMI: Star Wars X-Wing Fighter Getting Prepped for Smithsonian Appearance
An X-Wing starfighter prop used in production of the Star Wars sequel trilogy (2015-2019) is currently undergoing conservation at the Restoration Hangar of the Smithsonian’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in preparation to be displayed in the National Air and Space Museum in late 2022. While the National Air and Space Museum is closed to visitors until July 31, Star Wars aficionados can purchase timed tickets to view the X-Wing at the Udvar-Hazy Center. The X-Wing is on loan to the Smithsonian from Lucasfilm indefinitely.
Just like the people they represent, members of Congress hail from all sorts of backgrounds. With this diversity comes some interesting names. Here, we take a look at the stories behind some of the more intriguing names among current Representatives and Senators.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Wyden is the son of Peter Wyden and Edith Rosenow, both of whom were Jewish and had fled Nazi Germany to avoid persecution. The elder Wyden’s surname was originally Weidenreich, and he changed his surname after serving in the US Army in World War II and before embarking on a career in journalism.
Klobuchar’s paternal great-grandparents hail from Slovenia. Her surname is derived from Klobučar, which means “hatter” in Slovenian.
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
An ancestor of Crapo is Peter Crapaud, a young Frenchman who was shipwrecked off Cape Cod in 1680. Crapaud means “toad” in French.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
Born Deborah Insley, the Michigan Congresswoman changed her surname to Dingell after her marriage to the late Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) in 1981. Congressman Dingell’s father was the son of Polish immigrants who anglicized their surname from Dzięglewicz.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
The current Majority Leader’s father, Steen Theilgaard Høyer, is a native of Copenhagen, Denmark, and his first name is a variation of his father’s. In May 2009, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark honored Hoyer by making him a Knight of the Order of the Dannebrog.
Nunes’s surname is Portuguese and pronounced NEW-ness. Three of his four grandparents immigrated to California’s San Joaquin Valley from Portugal’s Azores islands. Nunes is a patronymic surname meaning “son of Nuno.” Unfortunately, Nunes is frequently mispronounced as the Spanish surname Nuñez (pronounced NOON-yez), even by other government officials.
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)
Yoho is an anglicized version of the Swiss-German surnameJoho. The earliest use of the name can be traced back to 1395, the birth year of Routschmann Joho in Switzerland’s Aargau Canton.
