Subject: Re: 2011/2012 House CDMRP Numbers are "In"
From: "Kevin Johnson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Skip Lockwood" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Mr. Jonathan Schwartz" <[email-masked]>, "Mr. Mitch Laurance" <[email-masked]>, "Mr. Robin Sparrow" <[email-masked]>, "Mr. Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Sherry Galloway" <[email-masked]>, "Jill O'Donnell-Tormey" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, "Mr. Tom Quinn" <[email-masked]>, "Mr. Michael Milken" <[email-masked]>, "Sanford Siegel" <[email-masked]>, "Dr. Thomas Moody" <[email-masked]>, "Concepcion, Raoul S." <[email-masked]>, "Mike Smith" <[email-masked]>, "Jamie Bearse" <
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:21:30 -0400

To follow up on Skip's message yesterday, the bill was marked up out of
committee yesterday and there were no amendments offered that would have
affected the CDMRP program.  Last week there were rumors that Rep. Flake
would offer such an amendment.  In the end he did offer an amendment aimed
at earmarks but it was defeated.

As of today, the plan is to consider the bill on the floor next week.  I am
not aware at this time of any amendments regarding CDMRP funding, but will
have my ear to the ground leading up to floor consideration.  I have a con
call with a coalition of groups who watch the CDMRP funding process and I
expect we will agree on a joint strategy for next week at that time.

I do not want to jump the gun and talk to a bunch of members about this
program as it could ultimately bring about the wrong kind of attention - see
John McCain speech earlier this past Spring.  As much as we can we want the
CDMRP programs to fly under the radar and keep the funding levels we have
now.

However, we will be reaching out to our friends in the House and arming them
to combat any potential amendments - despite the low numbers of signatures
on the approps request letter, we have a good number of members who will
oppose any amendments that will further deplete CDMRP funding and I hope
that I will be talking the other groups of the coalition to do the same.

With all of that said, I want to arm you all with one bit of information to
use in any conversations you might have with members, their staffs, or
really anybody with an interest in the PCRP.  This is going to sound
contentious towards the other cancer programs, but we should not make it a
contentious point - rather just a fact to keep people motivated to do as
much as possible for prostate cancer research.  Here it is:

While programs for breast cancer and ovarian cancer were cut from high
funding marks - $150m and $20m respectively - the PCRP peaked in 2001 at
$100m but the House number marked up yesterday cuts the program from $80m -
for reference, in 1999 the program received $50m and in 2000 the mark was
$75m.  So this cut will take us back to levels we haven't seen in over 10
years while breast is knocked back to levels they were at 3 years ago and
ovarian is still higher than they were 3 years ago ($10m).  Food for
thought.

Kevin

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Skip Lockwood <[email-masked]> wrote:

All,

Here is the latest update from Kevin and his team.  They are currently at
the House mark-up.  The numbers we have are for the House.  We will have to
see what the Senate does.

Kevin reports,

"Barring amendments that may or may not materialize today during the markup,
here are the numbers.

DOD Medical research – Pres Budget = $664m, Committee $1.2 (+523.5m over the
President's budget, but 25% below adds from last year which totaled almost
$700m)

Breast Cancer Research - $150m in 2011, $120m in 2012 mark
Prostate Cancer Research - $80m in 2011, $64m in 2012 mark
Ovarian Cancer Research - $20m in 2011, $16m in 2012 mark

Overall CDMRP funding cut by 20%."

Kevin succinctly summarized today's actions thusly, "the House
Appropriations Committee approved a bill that would provide $64 million in
FY2012 for the Prostate Cancer Research Program as part of the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.  This marks a 20%
reduction from the $80 million provided in FY2011."

As a reminder we still have to go through the Senate process and the final
reconciliation process if there are significant difference between the House
and Senate versions.  Kevin will be providing all of you with a more nuanced
assessment of the proceedings once the mark-up is complete.

Given the overwhelming focus on cutting spending, especially in the House,
it is a testament to Kevin and David's day-to-day perserverance on Cap. Hill
as well as their collaborative work with the CDMRP community that these
programs were not eliminated completely.  I also want to thank the Members
of the Board that have gone out of their way to make sure that Congress
understands the full importance of the CDMRP program.  Make no mistake
though, these cuts will cost American men their lives as promising new
treatments for prostate cancer will take much longer to develop and to
migrate from research to the patient.

--Skip

-- 
Skip Lockwood
President and CEO
ZERO -- The Project to End Prostate Cancer
10 G St., NE
Suite 601
Washington, DC 20002
202-463-9455 (main)
202-463-9456 (fax)

Virginia Office:
515 King St.
Suite 420
Alexandria, VA 22304

www.zerocancer.org
Twitter:  www.twitter.com/digitalskip
Facebook:  ZERO — The Project to End Prostate Cancer
Combined Federal Campaign #12161
______________________________________