118th Congress Elects Speaker of the House
Early morning on Saturday, January 7th, the House of Representatives elected Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as Speaker of the House after 15 rounds of votes. After electing McCarthy, member-elects were sworn in and a rules package, which shapes how the chamber operates and the voting process for legislation, was adopted in the House.
Republicans now control the House with a 222-212 majority (with Democrats likely to hold a 213th seat after a special election scheduled in February). Democrats control the Senate 51-49.
Congressional leaders continue to name the chairs, ranking members, and full committee rosters of House and Senate committees.
|
|
|
Request For Information and Public Comment Opportunities
OSTP RFI on the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative
Last month, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued two Requests for Information (RFIs) on the recently launched National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative. The first RFI seeks public feedback on “how advances in biotechnology and biomanufacturing can help us achieve goals that were previously out of reach and what steps can be taken to ensure we have the right research ecosystem, workforce, data, domestic biomanufacturing capacity, and other components to support a strong bioeconomy” with a deadline of January 20th. The second RFI focuses on how to “improve the clarity and efficiency of the regulatory processes for biotechnology products” with a deadline of February 3rd.
Department of Education RFI on the Higher Education Act Pooled Evaluation
The U.S. Department of Education issued a Request for Information (RFI) regarding its implementation of the new authority provided to the Department in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 to reserve funding from certain programs authorized by the Higher Education Act (HEA) for the Department to carry out rigorous evaluations and to conduct data collection and analysis of such HEA programs. The Department of Education would like written comments focused on ways to improve the administration of these programs and improve student outcomes in these programs. The Department also noted it is particularly interested in activities that are aligned to the Biden Administration’s higher education priorities, including promoting postsecondary retention and completion; strengthening alignment across postsecondary institutions, K-12 schools, and the public workforce system; strengthening community college capacity; and holistic student supports. Comments are due on or before February 17, 2023.
Department of Education Comment Period on Proposed Regulations Impacting Income-Driven Student Loan Repayment Program
This week, the Department of Education proposed regulations to simplify the income-driven repayment program and make it easier for borrowers to repay student loans through the income-driven repayment program. The program currently allows individuals to make payments that are calculated based on their discretionary income and family size for 20 to 25 years, before their remaining balance is forgiven. The proposed changes would cut payments in half for those in the program, meaning undergraduate borrowers would have to pay 5 percent of their discretionary income each month and graduate student borrowers would have to pay 10 percent. Borrowers with incomes below 225 percent of the federal poverty line would not have to make monthly payments. The regulations also propose to stop unpaid interest accumulation for borrowers who are making monthly payments and would lower the monthly payments required to receive loan forgiveness for borrowers with smaller loan balances. For example, under the proposed regulations, a borrower’s remaining balance would be forgiven after 10 years for borrowers whose original loan balances were $12,000 or less. Every additional $1,000 borrowed would add 1 year of monthly payments to the required time a borrower must pay before receiving forgiveness. No borrower would be required to make payments for more than 20 years for undergraduate loans and no more than 25 years for graduate loans.
The proposed regulations are open for public comment until February 10th. A press release from the Department of Education is available here.
|
|
Congressional Calendar
The Senate and the House of Representatives are in recess until the week of January 23rd.
|
|
U-M Faculty Engaged in Public Service: Christopher Friese
 |
We are proud to feature U-M faculty who volunteer their personal time in service to the nation. These engaged scholars serve on Federal Advisory Committees (FACs), Intergovernmental Personnel Agreements (IPAs), or on National Academy committees. These faculty and staff live out U-M’s mission to serve the state, nation, and world by applying their knowledge and expertise to help shape and inform national policy. If you are currently serving on a FAC, IPA, or National Academy committee, or have recently been selected to serve in one of these roles, please email us and let us know.
This month, we are featuring a Q&A with Christopher Friese, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing and Professor of Health Management and Policy. Professor Friese serves on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Cancer Advisory Board.
Could you tell us how you personally got appointed to the committee, and what your term of service is? Were you familiar with the role of the advisory committee before you joined?
I was called by the White House Office of Personnel, indicating that the President intended to nominate me, presuming completion of a few screening questions. The appointment is a six-year term. The National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) advises the National Cancer Institute (NCI) director in setting the course for the nation’s cancer research program. Part of that role also includes a second-level review of grant proposals submitted to the National Cancer Institute and selected other agencies. I have been aware of the NCAB for some time, as their meetings are public and the NCI director often gives key updates to the NCAB on a quarterly basis.
This link to the nomination announcement may be helpful.
How did you learn about this opportunity and what factors made you decide to serve?
As above, the White House called me, pretty much out of the blue! I was deeply honored to be recognized for my research and leadership in cancer. What I bring to the committee is the view of cancer clinician, scientist focused on improving care delivery, and a professor who strives to expand the cancer research workforce.
Please explain your role and/or a specific issue that you worked on.
I serve on two subcommittees: the first reviews the progress of the Comprehensive Cancer Centers program. NCI-designated cancer centers are funded to advance scientific understanding of cancer, and translate that new knowledge into risk reduction strategies or treatments. The second subcommittee evaluates the portfolio of cancer research that is focused on prevention, control, and population science. Currently, we are reviewing data from the NCI on the reach of their science, specifically, what studies are funded in different patient populations.
As one of the newer members on the committee, having joined in September of 2021, does your experience on the committee differ from your colleagues who have been on the committee for a greater length of time?
There definitely was a steep learning curve. The NCI budget is $6.9 billion dollars. There are a vast array of high-impact initiatives, which span the globe. So getting a handle on the various programs and priorities took some time. We are fortunate to have regular briefings from the NCI senior leadership.
How has COVID-19 affected your experience on the committee?
One unfortunate downside is that I’ve not been able to meet my colleagues in person. So far, all our meetings have been virtual. I do hope we have the opportunity for in-person meetings soon and to visit the National Cancer Institute and the Frederick National Laboratories.
What is the time commitment to serving on the committee? Is your experience on the committee what you expected?
We meet roughly every quarter. Some meetings are approximately half or a full day. We hold joint meetings with the Board of Scientific Advisors, which are often two-day meetings.
How has your research experience and expertise brought value to the committee?
I feel that I’ve been able to share what the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center has done to improve care delivery and advance the science. I’ve also been able to share some of our struggles and ask for clarity on key NCI priorities. As a clinician-scientist, I want to be sure that all patients receive equitable access to clinical trials and novel advances in risk reduction and treatment. Equitable access to science and care has been a key theme of our conversations.
Another area of interest is how the NCI will interface with the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) efforts. We hope to have more clarity soon. It’s my goal for the agencies that fund cancer research to do so in a complementary and synergistic way, as opposed to a cluttered, competitive approach.
Would you recommend that your colleagues seek out similar opportunities? How do you think this experience will strengthen your career or ability to be successful in the future?
What I’ve learned so far is that the cancer research enterprise is far more complex than I realized. Of course policy decisions confer tradeoffs. One new program means another great idea may not move forward. So understanding that, coupled with the broad bipartisan support for cancer research, has been a unique opportunity.
Faculty at Michigan have tremendous knowledge, skills, and expertise to offer federal advisory committees. We serve and study very unique populations. Our mission as a public university and large contributor to the biomedical workforce make our lens a unique one to share broadly. And you get to interact with some of the most interesting people in your field. Go for it!
Given what you’ve learned during your time on the FAC, is there anything else you’d like to share with faculty and others in the research community at U-M?
At some point in everyone’s career, it is worth pondering in what ways you can generate impact for the work you do, whether that’s instructional, clinical/service, or scientific discovery. Participating in a federal advisory committee tilts your chin up a bit. You get to see the broader landscape, ponder more challenging questions, and see where your work and the work of your colleagues fits into the ecosphere. These leaders of these agencies try hard to get it right and they need our expertise to inform their efforts.
To learn more about Christopher Friese’s background and research areas, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
