Many members of Congress find it easy to say they support our war on cancer. We don’t often get a chance to see if they walk their talk. On November 18 2005, we had such a chance.

Senator Durbin (D-Illinois) introduced a motion to the Senate, requiring that negotiations between the House and Senate insist on maintaining the Senate’s proposed 3.5% increase ($1B) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

What does that mean and why does it matter?

The next round of negotiations for research funding are scheduled to begin the week of December 12. As in any negotiation, there are places where you give way and places where you don’t. The Senators who supported Durbin’s motion are saying that research funding is non-negotiable. They are walking their talk about supporting cancer research and prevention.

Interestingly, Senator Brownback (R-Kansas) did not vote yes. Senator Brownback is the co-chair of the Senate Cancer Caucus. [His website says:](http://brownback.senate.gov/LICancer.cfm)

>As a co-chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition, I am continuing to work closely with Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to educate the Senate and public on issues surrounding the fight against cancer. Together, we are striving to renew the war on cancer.

[See what C3 says to Senator Brownback.](http://www.c-three.org/advocacy/brownback-letter.htm)

[See if your Senators support research funding:](http://c-three.org/advocacy/votingrecord.htm)

On November 17, Democrats and 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives teamed up to reject a spending proposal that reduced spending in health and education programs. The proposal included basically flat funding at the National Institutes of Health which results in a funding cut due to biomedical inflation. [In contrast, the Senate proposed a 3.7% increase for NIH](http://www.c-three.org/advocacy/2005/11/labor-hhs_conferees_begin_fy_2.php).

See the majority (Republican) perspective on the proposal

The defeat was a surprise to Republican leaders in the House and Senate, and left them scratching their heads to figure out how to proceed. Democrats celebrated the defeat, saying that the proposal gave inadequate funding to key priorities.

See the minority (Democrat) perspective

According to Congress Daily, “Republicans were considering options that include sending the bill back to conference, where conferees could attempt to craft a bill that would muster a majority; attaching it to another piece of appropriations legislation or passing a continuing resolution that would fund programs at the lower end of last year’s or this year’s levels.”

A continuing resolution – which doesn’t take biomedical inflation into account – would reduce funding for programs by $1.6 billion.

Both the House and Senate stopped work on November 18 for a long Thanksgiving break. The House returned on December 6, and the Senate will return on December 12. At that point, Congress will continue work on this and other outstanding legislation.

Congress is deciding how to spend our tax dollars – the decisions could be made this week – and the House of Representatives is still considering a cut of $100,000,000 to cancer research funding.

C3 is a member of the [One Voice Against Cancer (OVAC)](http://www.ovaconline.org) coalition. OVAC has professionals in DC telling our Representatives that cancer matters at home. We must reinforce that message if we want our Representatives to listen.

C3 has set up an action alert in our [One Minute Advocate](http://www.kintera.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=cgKJLROyEpH&b=437949) so you can log in and send a fax to your elected representative – it’s automated and it’s free. All you need to do is enter your name and address (because Representatives ignore communications unless they come from constituents) – the system does the rest.

**Do it today.**

The Colorectal Cancer Coalition is pleased to announce that we have joined forces with the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT), a nationwide coalition of private, public and volunteer organizations who work together to advance the control of colorectal cancer. Through coordinated efforts and improved communication, NCCRT:

* Strengthens the network of public and private organizations concerned
with promoting colorectal cancer screening
* Determines clinical and consumer barriers to screening through research
* Assesses current public awareness of and interest in screening
* Develops and disseminates health messages.

C3 remains focused on our mission to reduce the suffering and death due to colorectal cancer through pushing policy, research and awareness. We look forward to working with NCCRT in a combined effort to prove that colorectal cancer is preventable, treatable and beatable!

The process of developing cancer treatments, diagnostics and interventions can easily take 15 years or more:

* Ideas turn into lab experiments
* Lab experiments are moved to animals
* … and then to early research with people
* Good results mean large late-phase trials with large numbers of participants

The jump from lab experiments to large clinical trials is called TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH –and without translational research, promising ideas may be stuck in labs and test tubes instead of moving to patients.

NCI’s SPORE program [Specialized Programs of Research Excellence](http://spores.nci.nih.gov/index.html) funds translational research. SPORE research has resulted in 210 clinical interventions for patients in the last 13 years, a remarkable record.

The SPORE program is being reviewed by NCI, and significant changes are proposed. There is concern about the changes in many quarters, [including Congress](http://www.c-three.org/pdf/lettertohhs.pdf) and [SPORE advocates](http://www.sporeadvocates.net/content/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=2).

C3 urges NCI to be sure that changes are made thoughtfully in the context of scientific merit. [You can send the same message by asking your Congressional member to sign onto the Shaw-Harman letter before October 9. Click here to take action!](http://www.kintera.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=cgKJLROyEpH&b=437949)