Friday last week I wrote my two Senators (Lincoln and Pryor) to express my opposition to the conference report on H.R. 3010 which is the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (Labor-HHS) Appropriations Bill. It does not adequately fund National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cancer programs.

Today I received an email from the health legislative assistant (health LA) to Senator Lincoln. Here is what the health LA said:

It’s good to hear from you. Sen. Lincoln is deeply disappointed in the conference report and plans to oppose it. It is likely that this will come up for a vote tomorrow. We appreciate hearing from you!

Some thoughts on this:

I’m glad the Senator is dissappointed in the conference report but I am espcially glad she plans to oppose it. It is easy to say your are dissappointed in legislation. More than her words of opposition I want her nay vote when the conference report comes to the Senate floor.

Since it looks like this will come up for a vote Wednesday, December 21 there is very little time left for constituents opposing H.R. 3010 to tell their Senators to vote against it. The Senate convines at 9 AM eastern (8 AM central, 7 AM mountian, 6 AM pacific) so if you want to make one last call you need to do it shortly after 9 AM eastern.

You can dial (202) 224-3121 which is the U.S. Senate switchboard. Tell the operator the name of your Senator and you will be connected. When the Senator’s office answers the phone tell them you have a message for your Senator reguarding the H.R. 3010 conference report (aka Fiscal Year 2006 Labor-HHS Apprproations Bill).

Say you want the Senator to vote no because the bill provides inadequate funding for NIH, NCI and CDC cancer programs. You need to tell them your name and address so the office will know you are a constituent.

The words “We appreciate hearing from you!” are not just a nice closing to the email. Our elected officials really do appreciate hearing from us constituents. This is especially so when we tell them what issue we are interested in, our link to the issue and exactly what we want the official to do.

The following was published in the December 6, 2005 edition of the NCI Cancer Bulletin, a publication of the National Cancer Institute:

Update on FY 2006 NCI Budget Status

Congress has yet to approve appropriations legislation that provides updated funding levels for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for FY 2006, which began on October 1, 2005. As a result, NCI continues to operate within the guidelines of a Continuing Resolution (CR) passed by Congress, which keeps all HHS agencies funded at FY 2005 levels and allows NCI to operate at last year’s spending level of $4.825 billion. The current CR is set to expire on December 17, 2005.

In the interim, and as discussed at the NIH Director’s Advisory Committee meeting on December 1, noncompeting research grant awards will be made at a level of approximately 80 percent of the previously committed level. Upward adjustments to these levels will be considered after the final 2006 budget level is established. Competing renewal awards also are being made at approximately 80 percent of current levels until more definitive budget information is available. NCI leadership has advised that recipients continue to monitor their expenditures carefully during this period.

Go here to read the original article.

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.

Last week Dr. Andrew C. Von Eschenbach, Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and other senior leaders of NCI were in Dallas, Texas to host a retreat of the directors of all NCI-designated Cancer Centers. The third retreat of its type, its goal was to “encourage frank discussions and gain honest input from the directors on some of the most pressing issues facing NCI” (NCI Cancer Bulletin, November 15, 2005 edition).

The article, authored by Dr. von Eschenbach, went on to say:

“The directors recognize the essential role the Cancer Centers must play if we are to eliminate the suffering and death due to cancer. However, there were concerns among many that the timeline is too ambitious. At the same time, they recognized the substantial opportunities for real progress in the years ahead and were supportive of working with NCI leadership to establish intermediate milestones for reaching the 2015 goal.”

The Center Directors received updates on current NCI operations and priorities as well as an in-depth analysis of NCI’s fiscal year 2006 projeccted budget. Dr. Anthony Hayward of the National Center for Research Resources answered questions about the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) new Clinical & Translational Science Awards program.

Dr. von Eschenbach ended the article by stating:

“The Center Directors’ collective experience and unabated commitment to their institutions, as well as to quality research and patient care, makes this retreat an invaluable planning tool. I know I speak for the entire senior leadership team when I say we are fortunate to have access to such a talented groups of individuals. It’s their dedication, and the commitment to excellence they have imbued in the staff at their respective centers, that makes 2015 an attainable goal.

Click here to read the entire article as published in the November 15, 2005 edition of the NCI Cancer Bulletin.