Insights^

The nation needs more breakthrough medical treatments.  While the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the government’s leading biomedical research agency, unfortunately, it takes a long time to turn NIH-supported research into cures.  To bridge this gap between research and innovation, Democrats are proposing an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) with the hope that it will deliver breakthrough medical treatments quicker. 

For ARPA-H to be successful, its placement within the structure of the federal government may be key.  In a February 8 hearing by the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, witnesses testified to make the case that for ARPA-H to be effective, it cannot be housed within the NIH – instead, ARPA-H must be an independent agency within outside the purview of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Democrats modeled ARPA-H after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an independent research and development agency within the Department of Defense, that’s charged with the development of emergency technologies for use by the military.  According to former Assistant Secretary for Health Brett Giroir – a member of the witness panel and a former Director of Defense Science Office at DARPA – the independent status of DARPA was crucial in its ability to bring about innovations like cellular technology and the Global Positioning System (GPS).

During the hearing, members of the witness panel discussed several reasons why ARPA-H must be independent of NIH to be successful.

• Culture.  Like DAPRA, ARPA-H would need to have a distinct culture, vision, and approach to problem solving to deliver breakthroughs.  This is only possible if ARPA-H is separate  from NIH – otherwise, the new agency will be unable to develop a culture distinct from NIH.
• Operations. Unlike NIH researchers, project managers at ARPA-H would follow timelines with specific deliverables that witnesses at the hearing suggested being publicly posted.  DARPA follows a similar model
• Interaction with private sector.  Project managers at ARPA-H would be required to engage with the private sector to ensure that there is no overlap between research being conducted within the new agency and drug developers.  Witnesses at the hearing additionally suggested that ARPA-H hold listening sessions and/or engage with specific communities to ensure health equity is a focus at the new agency.

What comes next? House and Senate appropriators proposed funding for ARPA-H in Fiscal Year (2022) appropriations.  However, the new agency’s future is increasingly in doubt as lawmakers move to pass another continuing resolution to keep the government funded at FY 2021 levels through March 11 – which mean no funding for new initiatives like ARPA-H.  And it’s not just appropriations – for ARPA-H to become a reality, Congress needs to approve authorizing legislation, and there’s currently no timetable for when either of the bills that authorize ARPA-H will move forward.

E-bikes are really important, at least according to Democrats on the Hill.  Their $1.75 trillion Bill Back Better Act included a 30% refundable tax credit on the purchase of certain e-bikes, which Democratic lawmakers say are crucial to efforts to address climate change.  Considering that e-bikes only arrived on the scene a few years ago, how did they become popular enough to become a part of the Democrats’ climate change agenda?

Explaining e-bike’s popularity: Electric bicycles, which use a battery-powered electric motor to assist with propulsion, have exploded in popularity during the pandemic.  For instance, e-bike sales jumped 145% from 2019 to 2020, more than double the rate of tradition bicycles.  While it’s no surprise that more people would look to bicycles as a safe, outdoor transportation option in the midst of a pandemic, e-bikes offer many advantages that explain their popularity.

• A perfect middle ground between walking and driving.  People are more likely to walk or use a traditional bike for short trips of no more than a mile or two and drive for trips consisting of more than six miles.  For everything in between, e-bikes offer an additional comfortable, convenient option.
• A more sweat-free experience.  A bicycle trip lasting even a few miles will cause most cyclists to break a sweat, especially in locations that have high temperatures.  That’s why many commuters who use traditional bikes take advantage of showers at the workplaces whenever possible.  However, most e-bike users can arrive at their destination without being drenched in sweat thank to the assistance offered by the electric motor.  E-bikes also make it easier to conquer a hill or travel on a windy day compared to regular bikes.
• The price is nice.  While e-bikes are more expensive than regular bikes, their price has dropped considerably in recent years.  E-bikes can now be found for between $1,000 and $1,500, while traditional road bikes usually cost $350-700.  And considering the average cost of a new car topped $46,000 in 2021, e-bikes offer a substantially better value proposition than their four-wheel counterparts.  This value proposition improves even more when accounting for the cost of fuel, insurance, and maintenance.

Why are lawmakers so interested in e-bikes?  Simply put, Democrats want more Americans to use e-bikes because they provide a more climate-friendly transportation option than gas and electric cars. Most of the time, carbon sources power the batteries used in electric car motors. And even if an electric car is being recharged with green sources, like wind and solar, electric cars still require significant energy to build and maintain. Therefore, e-bikes are one-way Americans can reduce their climate footprint as climate advocates say greater e-bike usage will be even more impactful in fighting climate change due to e-bikes producing less carbon emissions.

It’s not just the environment. An increased use of e-bikes can have a  positive outcomes for health equity and safety, too.  By encouraging people to drive less, e-bikes would mean less cars on the road, making streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists.  Additionally, the refundable tax credit can make an e-bike more affordable for individuals who need more accessible transportation options. Many low-income Americans, who often live in communities far from employment opportunities and grocery stores, need more options to access jobs and nutrition sources through transportation, which also addresses a key social determinants of health.

Will e-bike tax credits become a reality?  Democrats are looking to revive BBB – or at least a watered-down version – that at minimum won’t include the expanded child tax credit and federally subsidized community college.  It remains uncertain whether e-bike tax credits will remain in a revived, “skinny” BBB, however, given the growing interest in e-bikes among Democratic lawmakers and the American people, the conversation over providing tax credits isn’t going away anytime soon.

All the Members of Congress Who Aren’t Running for Reelection in 2022 (1/19/2022)

Get ready for action in November.  Ahead of what’s certain to be a historic midterm election in Congress, 45 current incumbents – six Senators and 38 Representative – have declared they won’t be seeking reelection for the 118^th Congress.  While all Senators have cited retirement as a reason, which typically entailsspending more time with family or an account for health issues, the reasons House members are not running again vary a bit more. While 18 Democrats and 6 Republicans in the House have cited retirement, 15 Representatives – eight Democrats and seven Republicans – are stepping aside to run for other offices.  The following charts list all the current incumbents in Congress who’ve said they aren’t running for reelection in 2022, and their reasons for doing so.

House

Senate

What does “retirement” really mean?  While some members are legitimately retiring from public service either due to health issues or to spend time with family, some House Democrats with competitive seats, like Cheri Bustos and Ron Kind, may be preemptively stepping down to avoid the possibility of losing their seat in what’s sure to be a difficult midterm election cycle for Democrats.  The president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress during the  midterm election. And this year is no exception, especially with President Joe Biden’s current low approval rating simply makes “retirement” from Congress a more palpable option than a difficult reelection battle.

And it’s not just Democrats worried about tough reelection fights.  Three retiring GOP congressmen, – John Katko, Adam Kinzinger, and Anthony Gonzalez, all voted to impeach former President Donald Trump in February 2021 following the riot at the US Capitol.  Trump is still popular among a large number of Republican voters, and this trio may have just decided to end their career in Congress on their own terms rather than face a tough primary race against an opponent who strongly supports the former president.

Gridlock, gridlock, gridlock.  Thanks to deeply embedded polarization, Democrats and Republicans in Congress hardly work together in a bipartisan manner to pass legislation.   However, there’s one committee that has a proven track record of members working together across the aisle: the House Select Committee on Modernization of Congress.

What it is: A bipartisan committee with an equal number of Democratic and Republican members, the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress was established in January 2019 to investigate, study, hold hearings, and develop recommendations to make Congress more effective, efficient, and transparent.  The committee’s members are appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and two committee members are each chosen from the House Rules Committee, the House Administration Committee, and the congressional freshman class.

While the committee does not have legislative jurisdiction – meaning it lacks the authority to develop or advance legislation – it does release rolling recommendations throughout the year. Nearly 100 recommendations have been issued over the past three years across several key areas, including streamlining and reorganizing the House of Representatives human resources, overhauling the onboarding process for new members, modernizing House technology, and reforming the budget and appropriations process.

Recent moves: On December 8, 2021, the select committee approved 25 new recommendations, 14 of which are designed to create a more civil and collaborative environment in Congress.  Key examples include creating bipartisan websites for committees, hosting bipartisan committee events, and promoting civility and collaboration at a proposed Congressional Leadership Academy and Congressional Staff Academy.  The new recommendations’ focus on civility is likely a reaction to the institution’s increasingly polarized environment that has only gotten worse since last year’s riot at the Capitol.

Recommendations do become policy. Even though the select committee can’t develop its own legislation, nearly 60% of the 97 recommendations been implemented by Congress to some degree.  Key examples include:

• Creating a one-stop shop Human Resources HUB dedicated to Member, committee, and leadership staff.
• Making permanent the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.
• Allowing newly elected members to hire and pay one transition staff member.
• Providing more financial stability for congressional staff enrolled in the federal student loan program.
• Establishing a Community Project Funding process to allow non-profit entities to apply for competitive grants from a member of Congress (House only).  Community Project Funding requests are similar to earmarks in that they allow members to allocate funding to projects in their district, although the newest iteration has more rules and transparency requirements.

But unfinished business remains.  Many of the committee’s recommendations that have been adopted by Congress amount to non-partisan, low-hanging fruit intended to improve the workplace environment for congressional staff and members.  In contrast, the committee’s more sweeping, structural recommendation on budget and appropriations haven’t seen much movement, with the exception of the committee’s Community Project Funding recommendation.  These include:

• Requiring an annual Fiscal State of the Union with a presentation of baseline budgetary facts to provide a common set of numbers on which to base decisions;
• Requiring a biennial budget resolution with annual appropriations bills, which would provide appropriators more time to plan; and
• Limiting use of the budget reconciliation process to only deficit reduction and require an explanation of changes in direct spending or revenue that have not been reconciled.

While the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress certainly seems to have a bipartisan track record, the polarized environment of the legislative branch limits how far the committee’s recommendations can go, especially when they pertain to larger, structural changes.  However, the committee’s work is far from done – the House voted in January 2021 to reauthorize the select committee through 2023 – meaning the bipartisan group will continue to have time to put out new recommendations to create a more efficient and productive Congress.

Redistricting has made for strange bedfellows. Thanks to population losses reported in the 2020 Census, seven states lost one seat apiece in the US House of Representatives.  Individual states redraw their district boundaries to create a new map of congressional districts, and the states that lost a congressional seat have their own set of unique challenges.  On top of that, several states where one party has a supermajority are using their leverage to redraw district lines to bump out House members from another major party.  Therefore, the results of these newly drawn district lines have made for five strange matchups that involves two incumbents from the same party.

Lucy McBath (D-GA) versus Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-GA)

Both congresswomen are new to Washington – McBath was elected in 2018, and Bourdeaux in 2020.  On December 30, 2021, Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp, signed into law a Republican-drawn congressional map that shifts most of McBath’s 6^th Congressional District to the exurbs west of Atlanta where Republicans dominate the electorate.  As a result, McBath is now running in the 7^th Congressional District, which is currently held by Bourdeaux.  Each congresswoman has her own advantages, so the race is likely to be close.  While McBath has gained national recognition for her story as a gun control advocate and cancer survivor, Bourdeaux’s old district represents most of the new district, and she has repeatedly touted her ties to the district on the campaign trail.

Marie Newman (D-IL) versus Sean Casten (D-IL)

Democrats currently control 13 of Illinois’ 18 congressional seats, and Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law in November 2021 a new congressional map that aims to give Democrats a total of 14 seats out of 17 seats since the state will lose one due to a drop in population.  To accomplish this, however, state legislators had to put Rep. Newman and Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-IL) in the same district.  Rather than run against a fellow progressive, Newman has opted to run in the neighboring 6^th Congressional District, currently held by Rep. Casten.  While Casten has been touting his work on climate an infrastructure, much of Newman’s old district lies in the new one, and she has been emphasizing her longtime Chicagoland roots to contrast herself with her opponent, who moved to the area as an adult.

Mary Miller (R-IL) versus Rodney Davis (R-IL)

Illinois Democrats’ “sacrifice” of Newman was intended to thin the herd of GOP-held seats.  For instance, the new map puts Rep. Miller’s hometown in a new seat held by Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) that covers the southern third of the state.  Rather than fight against Bost, Miller opted to seek run against Rep. Davis in the primary, whose central Illinois district contains portions of Miller’s old district.  While Davis has represented his district in Washington for five terms, Miller brings to the table an endorsement from former President Donald Trump, although she recently faced controversy for quoting Hitler.

Andy Levin (D-MI) and Haley Stevens (D-MI)

Michigan lost a congressional seat in 2020 Census.  The state’s new congressional map is the product of an independent commission, and while the commission has been successful in avoiding partisan gerrymandering, it wasn’t enough to stop a race between two incumbents.  Both Rep. Levin and Rep. Stevens could have opted to run in the new 10^th Congressional District, which leans slightly Republican and contains suburban communities northeast of Detroit.  But instead, both Democratic incumbents chose to seek reelection in the 11^th Congressional District, which features a more Democratic-leaning electorate in the suburbs northwest of Detroit.   While Levin resides in the new district, Stevens’ current district includes much of the new one she’s running in.

David McKinley (R-WV) versus Alex Mooney (R-WV)

West Virginia’s House delegation will shrink from three to two members in the next Congress.  A new congressional map signed into law by Republican Gov. Jim Justice last fall means Rep. McKinley and Rep. Mooney will have to square off to see who will represent the state’s northern 2^nd Congressional District next year.  While two-thirds of McKinley’s old district is included in the newly formed district, Mooney is a staunch supporter of former President Trump, meaning whoever wins the May 10^th primary is anyone’s guess.