Even mexico in some senses. They have no choice. People think when you go to india you are going off for some exotic treatment and hes going to bang la door which is our like silicon valley. This is very high tech. Its sophisticated. And just from a personal perspective and i think from the perspective of a lot of patients, we need to allow that to happen here. The patient needs to have that choice. Mrs. Carr totally agree. When there is so much at risk and on the line, parents are willing to do whatever it takes. When you are telling someone there is a zero percent chance and someone saying we have this option. Would you want to try that . To be able to do that is important. I appreciate you getting my attention and giving that response. Im from i grew up in rural northwest alabama. What people would consider dirt poor. Particularly interested in what the Huntsman Cancer Research is doing and in rural areas. Is that nationwide . Actually because were surrounded by vast rural and frontier populations, we just are in a really great place in the country to make this a focus. We believe that the work were the mountain nd west has complete relevance to rural and frontier areas. For example the symptom management tool we developed, we know that patients undergoing chemotherapy who are rural and frontier patients drive long hours away from Medical Center after their treatment and they go back home and they are facing debilitating sometimes challenging side effects. And so we developed a tool that touches base with them on a regular basis and with their caregiver and we found that that has really alleviated their symptoms quite dramatically, and also reduced caregiver anxiety. That kind of thing is a way in which we reach out and try to support our rural and frontier patients and their families during the course of their treatment. And what were learning in utah should be relevant around the contry. Mr. Palmer if the chairman would indulge me one more question. Its an issue that this committee has been focused on, particularly the chairman and Ranking Member cummings, that is drug prices. I saw a study here from the Sloan Kettering cancer certainty, about 3 billion wasted in Cancer Treatment where the Drug Companies are putting more medicine in the vial than they need knowing its more than is needed for the treatment. Thats basically being thrown away valued at 3 million. Would any of you like to comment on that . Are you aware that have . Is that something you are aware of . I would recommend it was i got the article here. If i may well interenter it into the record. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Palmer with that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentlewoman from florida, mrs. Demings, for five minutes. Mrs. Demings thank you so much, mr. Chairman and to our Ranking Member. Mrs. Carr thank you so much for talking about chad. I didnt know chad. But i raised three sons. And i know chad. To hear your description of him he represents thousands of children throughout this contry, millions throughout the world. And in your written testimony claimsked about the dipg about 300 lives a year and you mentioned that thats really not a large or huge number, but which child would we not do everything in our power to save . If it was one child, 200, or 300, which one would we not do everything within our power to save . I also understand that Chad Foundation is part of a larger group of organizations looking for clues to dipg. Together these groups are funding a registry to collect information on the disease, is that correct . Mrs. Carr yes. The dipg collaborative i spoke about has formed the registry. So when chad passed away, we donated his tumor postmortem and it was the university of michigan has some of that as well as physician who is now going to a Childrens Hospital and it is also kept in the registry so it can be utilized by scientists around the country. So that is one investment this collaborative has made to really get the word out this is a way we can impact research. Mrs. Demings last month n. C. I. Announced it was announcing its largest study of american africanamerican cancer survivors in the United States. Drawing on an existing population base cancer registry, the Detroit Research on cancer survivor study would look at factors that affect survivor rates among africanamericans diagnosed with cancer. I know we talked a little bit about that, but doctor, could you explain the range of social and biographical variables that the study might consider as it elates to cancer survival. Thats a good question. Its not my area of expertise. But i would expect that they are going to be a range of issues including what the underlying types of diseases, the patients have had and what kind of access they have had. Dr. Jaffe for those treatments. When patient who is healthy gets cancer its easier to receive the treatments we have than patients who have other underlying comorbidities. I would think that would be a major issue depending how much access to good care the patients have had prior to developing the ancer. Getting access to the right places is a very challenging issue for patients who dont have the means. I would comment i think this is one of the things thats so important about the National Cancer institutes efforts in that the n. C. I. Can really bring together these nationwide consortia and registries so we can get information about survivorship and outcomes for patients across the entire country. Dr. Beckerle that eliminates the kind of sampling error that can happen if you are just looking at one site in one state that might be different than what happens in another place in the contry. This is a really important contribution of the National Cancer institute to our national health. Mrs. Demings thank you. Using data from the nci cancer childhood study published Research Revealed a reduction of second malignancies among survivors of Childhood Cancer. Using population data researchers were able to determine that over the course of 15 years or more, children treated with lower does doses of radiation were less likely to develop second cancers. Can you comment on the value of this sort of longterm research . Im happy to comment on that. I think what that study points out is progress that we have made in understanding the consequences of the treatments that we use. And radiation is a good example. Its now clear that radiation can promote the kind of changes in cells that ultimately lead to cancer. Therefore those treatments have to be used at appropriate doses and minimized wherever job. Wherever possible. Its being played out now and the observation there are fewer second malignancies. D jaffee just related to that. This area of Childhood Cancer survivorship is really important. We have this Great Success now in our ability to street Childhood Cancers, even though we have a lot more to do. But what were now beginning to see is that there are dr. Beckerle what we call late effects of these treatments. Sometimes due to the radiation or chemo chairman. Sometimes psycho social effects,er if tillities effects, seths. Etc. There are many, many things where research is required and will be really helpful to address the current unmet needs of individuals who have undergone a successful treatment for Childhood Cancer so we can make it better going into foot ture. Mrs. Demings thank you so very much. I yield back. I thank the gentlewoman. Well now yield now recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. Blum, for five minutes. Mr. Blum thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to our panelists for being here and thank you for your emotional testimony, mrs. Carr. I was standing in the doorway when you started to testify. Im the father of six children and i started thinking about every one of them. Im so proud you are here today and serve the cause well. Im sure chad is very proud of his mom today as well. Mrs. Car mrs. Carr thank you. Mr. Blum i have two questions. First of all we look at the dollars spent by governments and by people who donate and contribute to research, Cancer Research, alzheimers research, whatever it may be. And im always concerned as a career businessman what kind of collaboration is there between the disparate Research Facilities and institutes . Are we doing enough to share the information . Theres collectively there is not enough, trust me there is not enough Research Going on. Im a huge advocate for what you want, huge. But there is a fair amount going on, billions of dollars being spent. I want to make sure that were sharing that information between all of the researchers. So maybe people involved in Research Facilities could could you give me your thoughts s there enough collaboration. If there is not, what can the federal government play a role in that . Or dr. Jacks you raised an important point. Were facing that problem increasingly by the day because the amount of data were generating today is greater because of new technology. So the answer is yes. There is considerable collaboration and interaction. The National Cancer institute, Cancer Centers program would be one example. A network of Cancer Centers throughout the country who interact and share information. But there is still a gap. In fact, the cancer moon shot recommended the development of a National Infrastructure to facilitate the sharing of cancer data to store it more appropriately, to make access easier, to develop the kind of Software Tools necessary to analyze it. So as to break down any existing barriers that do currently exist to improve that situation. So there is examples of progress, but there is actually still a need. I think the moon shot funding that you have funded will help us close that gap. I could give awe few examples of whats already ongoing. So we now have through the n. C. I. s efforts the development of an open access resource for sharing cancer data via the genomic data comments. They even brought in outside groups such as foundation medicine, which will double the total number of patients information into this. Dr. Jaffee this is an open access available to everyone. And again as dr. Jacks said, one of the Blue Ribbon Panel initiatives is to start to increase this and use the funding that was given to us from congress to now increase this ability. Also the n. C. I. Is developing genomic cloud pilots and these pilots will again expand data sets that will include imaging, will include immunotherapeutics. So that we can really start to look at different cancers and better understand the whole Tumor Microenvironment and not just the againics. There are other factors that contribute to it. In addition it will allows us to look at rare cancers and try to use cancers that have been put into this database, it will increase the number. We can now make more hypothesis sees of why patients get these cancers and identify targets to develop drugs against. Dr. Beckerle all of us in the Cancer Research community are desperately working to improve outcomes for cancer patients. We know that none of us as individuals or even within the institutions hold all of the knowledge thats necessary. So we are naturally inclined to collaborate and to share information. And the National Cancer institute is really helping to support us in that effort. An example that i would give thats related to our new knowledge and the Precision Medicine era is that we now are trying to test really exciting new therapies that are only relevant for a small subset of patients that have a particular genomic signature. Particular d. N. A. Signature. And so what that means is that even for a disease like lung cancer that is a relatively common disease, the patients with a particular type of lung cancer that might be eligible to contribute and to participate on a particular Clinical Trial might represent less than 10 , even 1 sometimes of the total patients. So the only way were going to really understand whether that treatment is going to work is if we have a National Network in which we find these patients across the entire country and bring them together to participate in a Clinical Trial. Thats exactly the kind of infrastructure and support that is provided through federal funding by the National Cancer institute. Mr. Blum my time has expired. I would like to say theres a lot of things republican, a loft things the government shouldnt be involved in that were involved n one of the things we should be involved in is researching these hideous diseases. As for 21st century secured act and i stand against the president s budget cuts. We need to spend more not less in these areas. I thank thank you very much. God bless you, mrs. Carr. I yield back my time. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize mrs. Watson coleman from new jersey. I guess well go to mrs. Lawrence, michigan. Mrs. Lawrence thank you, mr. Chair. I want to acknowledge mrs. Carr and express my deep condolences for the loss of your son. Being from michigan we watched the love, the support, and your advocacy. And just know that as a ichigander, chads inspirational fight against cancer and your devotion to raising funds and awareness for dipg is remarkable. Mrs. Carr thank you very much. Mrs. Lawrence so proud of you. Not unlike political parties, Michigan State and the u of m fans dont often agree on everything, however chads battle with cancer and your commitment to his continuing legacy has crossed across the fan lines and united spartans and wolverines behind a common cause. Cancer research is something that impacts all of us not just democrats or republicans. When the president released his proposed budget, i was devastated to see the draconian cuts being made to n. I. H. In your testimony you discussed the major strides that n. I. H. Researchers have made toward cancers such as leukemia. As you noted 40 years ago leukemia had a 10 survival rate. Today the survival rate is almost 90 . That represents just one of the countless medical achievements that has been made as a result of funding to n. I. H. Mrs. Carr, as someone with firsthand knowledge, i would like to give you an opportunity to speak to us as members of congress who have the ability to increase funding to n. I. H. , to discuss the merits of research being done by this funding. Mrs. Carr thank you. Wed like to call it in the dipg community what we hope for is the home run strategy. Pediatric leukemia was considered a rare disease not too long ago. They focused. And i think whether or not you consider dipg, its rare. No doubt. But brain tumors in general are not rare. Pediatric brain tumors are the leading cause of cancer death in children. So focusing on pediatric brain tumors is something that makes sense. For us the strategy that were taking and as far as our funding goes, which again is a drop in the bucket, is that if we focus on the hardest tumor and wellly focus on it and now with the momentum that there is tissue now. They can study the samples. The c. E. D. And learning about blood lity to pass the brain barrier with a catheter which is the Clinical Trial chad was a part of. If we really focused i feel like even raising the bar from zero to 2 is a movement in the right direction. We have seen in michigan alone a lot of researchers are now because were willing to provide some funding, and there is a big room to increase success rates there. But they are looking young scientists are now interested in looking into this disease. And thats a really wonderful thing. We talked about Clinical Trials being important. A lot of children with dipg, chad was one of the lucky ones that was able to participate in a Clinical Trial. A loft these children, they dont meet the requirements. And they arent even able to participate. As a parent i can tell you one thing, when youre basically deciding on the treatment plan for your child, because thats what this is, the doctors dont know what to tell you. Radiation is the only thing that they know to tell you, which we know now causes secondary problems. So in the end if they were to survive, they are not they are not out of the woods. There are going to be other secondary cancers most likely. Chad received 30 rounds of radiation. So i think the way were looking at it is focusing on the toughest, allowing that to open the floodgates for the other more treatable tumors and focusing on those pediatric tumors because children are not adults. Mrs. Lawrence i want to thank you again and commend your commitment to fighting. And again to say i hope my colleagues are able to take your stories as a reason for why we cannot allow these proposed cuts to n. I. H. To be implemented in the upcoming budget. And just on a personal note, everyones strives to have their life be a legacy or be a mark or to do something that will be reflected in history as game changer. Your son did that. And with your fight, his life will mean so much more to so many people. So thank you so much. Mrs. Carr thank you, we believe his five years hes accomplished more than most people accomplish in their whole lives. Mrs. Lawrence thank you so much. Thank you. We now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, for five minutes. Just a quen question. What are the funding requirements for 21st century cures is working Cancer Research. Mr. Dr. Jacks what are the funding requirements . Are you talking about the nature of the applications, that sort of thing . Mr. Grothman how much do you anticipate dr. Jacks we outlined several recommendations, each of which has a pretty broad scope. Frankly the moneys that came through the 21st century cures act are a start to begin to accomplish those goals. But i dont think we could accomplish all of them where the moneys allocated, but it would be a helpful start. Mr. Growthman the dollar numbers. Dr. Jacks the current is 300 million. I think it could easily be two or three times that amount and we could have spent the money wisely. Mr. Grothman is there any way you can Prioritize Research together . So you can shave that down . Dr. Jacks in that specific program we worked hard to create a series of prioritized recommendations. I think what you have there is our best effort in a particular form of Cancer Research, more mission focused form of Cancer Research, so that is our set of priorities for that particular program. I should add that funding in our view does not in any way replace the standard appropriation to the n. I. H. Or n. C. I. Which is much more substantial and provide funding across a wide range of areas of discovery research. Mr. Grothman i understand a loft what 21st century cures did is necessary. Im about the cheapest guy up here. I voted for it. Because i do know how important not Just Research for cancer but other things as well. All the people affected by them. We just touched upon brain tumors in children. Do you know how many different institutions around the country are maybe doing work in this area . Dr. Jacks mrs. Carr may know better. Mrs. Carr im not really sure how many are focusing. I think i know down at michigan were trying to create a brain tumor certainty. I dont believe anything exists like that currently. Not that there are people doing researching all over. As far as dipg that brain tumor, there are some very phenomenal researchers at stanford and kettering. Mr. Grothman cancer in general, maybe ill give you this question in general, i know we do a loft research in wisconsin, a huge a research on cancer in wisconsin, been doing it for many years. If i just asked in general how many different universities around the country are doing Cancer Research, would you be able to cans that for me . Dr. Jacks i would say of the Research Universities in america, all of them have programs that relate to cancer. Mccartel Cancer Center in wisconsin is one of the leading ones. That kind of broad based effort is necessary for a variety of reasons. One, there is a lot to be learned. We want to draw on the resources across the country. Two, you actually want to train the individuals in your states to become biomedical researchers and scientist. So that has to be done at a National Level at well. Mr. Grothman could you have two competing interests here in my mind. On the one hand its good that you have a lot of institutions around the country doing Cancer Research because maybe theres something that people at m. I. T. Think will work that other people he think never would work. If you had a topdown approach they would say dont go there. But are you able to go there and find good things. On the other hand, you have a concern if there are many places around the country you may be duplicating efforts. You may not be coordinating with each other. And thats what im getting to if there are you tell me, 40, 50, 60 different places around the country doing Cancer Research, maybe not, maybe 20, 80, thats why i ask you, are we where do you think were in that conflict or competing goal . Make sure that everybodys independent, can do something if its against the conventional wisdom. On the other hand, you dont want to have four people doing the same thing or somebody doing research that they found out in another place around the country not effective five years ago. I think thats a complex question. Its an important one. Its complex to give you a straight answer. I think there are a couple of facts we do know. That is if you look around the country at the different Cancer Centers, there are different expertise at different cancers centers. Dr. Jaffee as you point out how many place does brain cancer . Not that many. Its also geared toward what funding is available. Currently the funding is pretty tight at the n. I. H. And n. C. I. We used to get about a 25 to 30 of grants funded. Now were down between 10 and 14 . That limits what can be done. We believe based on review groups that theres much greater amounts of Good Research than being funded. I suspect that the review process is one way to prevent duplication. Mr. Grothman it scares me when you say youer not sure how many places around the country are doing broich on kids. I would think people are doing it in ucla, wisconsin, michigan. But you dont know, do you . Dr. Jaffee there arent many places that do it. Thats the problem. If you asked me about immunotherapy i could tell you there are five places that do it around the country in a big way. I cant tell you about brain tumors because i cant other than thinking well st. Judes probably does brine tumors. But there is no brain tumor institute. Mrs. When you talk about dipg, the folks that come together to fund that offer, thats what we do as a collaborative. We make sure that every proposal that comes through because were so few of us and there is so little money there. Mrs. Carr the duplication of that, thats something we dont want. Mr. Grothman it concerns me you dont know. Like i said i would think you would show up here and maybe one of you, maybe there was somebody else, somebody would say were doing Cancer Research in these 80 institutions. These are the specialties of the 80 institutions and have it here. Dr. Jacks its important for you to know whom you are speaking with. We represent particular institutions. Mr. Grothman i understand. Dr. Jacks if you were to ask the director of the National Cancer institute he would have an answer for you. And sometimes its difficult to know in the sense for example at m. I. T. Last year we announced a new initiative on pediatric brain cancers. My colleagues probably dont know that because it was a local effort. Mr. Grothman they should know it. The gentlemans time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to really thank you and the Ranking Member and all the panelists. This is a personal issue for so many of us. Mr. Desaulnier i want to address one of my comments from one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle about cost benefits as a democrat from the San Francisco bay area, i think cost benefits are important. Last hearing of this committee i believe last week talked about the department of defense an audit by the Business Community and mckenzie there is 125 million worth of waste in their budget. Yet the administration is suggesting taking money away from n. I. H. To put in their budget. So before we do that by the way, that hearing was bipartisan as this one is. In terms of applying our oversight. Making sure we get the best return for investment for taxpayers in the department of defense. To jump to the conclusion that we should give them money at the expense of n. I. H. , i just find appalling. On that level just the cost benefit, a dollar, every dollar invested in n. I. H. Returns almost 8. 50 in extra spending just on the genome project it has resulted in nearly 1 trillion of economic growth. All of these things i learned because when i was leekted to ngress i elected to congress i unnortherly joined a club. Unfortunately what i have is chronic leukemia. And during the process there were ups and downs as to my mortality, but as has been testified earlier, 20 years ago there was a 10 , now there is a 90 survival rating. Having been involved in this and absorbed myself in the history several now talked to doctors and read their books and gone to n. I. H. , spent multiple times at the university of california in San Francisco which we in the bayaire say is the second largest recipient of n. I. H. Funding, and were hoping to sur vast Johns Hopkins at some surpass Johns Hopkins at some point. Spending time at stanford in my local hospitals. Its remarkable. And a loft this goes to the survivors. The a lot of this goes to the survivors, Family Members. Who have found their voice and the voice you have expressed today. Your son clearly is here in our presence today. And you know that. But its not a trite thing to say that your experience. So in my case, reading back, sydney, having grown up in boston, having looked at the Fund Advertisement as a young person, and now never knowing what that was about, now knowing that that was a both an initiative by people who cared to come in front of congress and convince congress and president nixon to sign a legislation that helped start all of this. So the synergy understanding that im cautioned by people of my own district dont get carried away. This is still there is no cure, for instance, in my instance people at n. I. H. , wonderful research, you go out there its hard to believe the value we get. And i know mr. Roskam will speak since he represents that area. These young, nameless people who are heroes who have saved my life and millions of other peoples lives. In that context, and in seeing what this brings in value added around the world, they showed pea me a map of all the affiliated relationships around the world. Its like a military map. The moral high ground we get as americans by doing that, speaking to the chief researcher out there and how many times hes been in china because chinas trying desperately to replicate what we have here, its just staggering to me that we would consider its a real statement of our values. Who how we address. Research related against and average Life Expectancy for the period 1970 to 2000 have an economic value in the United States of 95 trillion. And maybe not in this instance, but im a living example of hat. My on kohl gist told me 15 years if twaun was doig knowsed with what i have, he would have sprinkled water on me and told me enjoy what time i had left. Hopefully ill have an 85 survival rating. A lot of that back to Pediatric Research we know dana fasher was because people when you read the stories of young people dying of leukemia and what i have, it was because the moral obligation for americans was to invest in that. Briefly in conclusion, one of the things i tried to work on and starting survivors caucus which i hope as many members join as possible, and its very broadly defined, is talking to the doctors and i hope they will come to speak to this group. I hope you will come as well. One of the things has been communication. We do a bad job of communicating the amazing return on investment. Then communication from the medical industry to the people ho have been impacted by this. Mrs. Carr, you are an example of that voice. How can we do better . Mrs. Carr i think listening is part of it, too. I think hearing what families have to say, hearing about these experiences, and really listening. Thinking about how can i help make that change. How can i help do something . You guys are in the position to actually make that happen. We can talk to you all we want, but people in these rooms are the ones that are the one that is can make things happen. For me thats what i would say. You guys hold all the power. Mr. Desaulnier thank you, mr. Chairman. We recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. Raskin, for five minutes. Mr. Raskin thank you very much. Im indeed the congressman from n. I. H. From the eighth Congressional District in maryland and the n. I. H. Is very much in the heart of my district. Being the representative from this area, i know intimately and i keep close track of all of the research thats going on into leukemia, lung cancer, colon cancer, cystic fibrosis, asthma, bulimia, drug abuse, alcohol abuse. Its just extraordinary the range of scientific inquiries and endeavors taking place at the n. I. H. I also want to speak as a survivor, and i wasnt aware of a survivor caucus, i would be delighted to join you, mr. Desaulnier, in that. I had colon cancer back in 2010. I was then teaching at American University law school. A state senator. Sontag n essay by susan which she said something that was very poignant which is everybodys born with two passports. A passport to the land of the living, and the healthy, and a passport to the land of the sick. And all of us are going to have to use both passports at some point in our lives. Whats striking to me is that those people who have gone through it or have had an immediate Family Member go through it, look at Something Like a proposed 6 billion cut in n. I. H. Medical Research Budget and are horrified by it. Just astounded. Then people who have not been directly touched go about their business. My question for you, mrs. Carr, thank you for your wonderful testimony, is basically how do we maintain the consciousness of both passports and the coexistence of these two lands . I remember when my chemo ended the very last one feeling as if i had suddenly returned to a place from a very long, harrowing trip i had been on. How do we make that consciousness permeate the country . Mrs. Carr i think its hard. Can i tell you i didnt know a lot of these i can tell you i didnt know a lot of these things before i had to know thefment i didnt know pediatrics only receive 4 of funding. I didnt know i didnt even know what dipg was. I think having more people who have been there trying to resonate their experience to those and hopefully people here they feel sad and sorry, but hopefully they really think about that impact. I think having these three here talking about there are benefits to research beyond just saving people right now. These are huge financial implications. There is so much there. And i dont want i tell people, you dont get it until you get it. Unfortunately, though, you dont want people to join that club. I think as many advocates as we can build for helping to share our story because, again, there are only so many of us, thank goodness, that have lost children. Only so many of us those that want to share their story. Creating more advocates among people in this room who can then do that and help us in those efforts. Mr. Raskin let me ask a question of dr. Beckerle. One of the great an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I know i gave a little steve yesterday about alzheimers disease and did some research and found that we spend 250 times more treating people with alzheimers disease through medicaid and medicare alone than we do on researching to get a cure for alzheimers, which is now beginning to spiral out of control. The jumps in the number of people suffering from alzheimers and die from alzheimers are extraordinary. Talk, if you would, about how we get people focused on prevention rather than just spending a lot of money after the fact trying to mop up. Dr. Beckerle i think this is a really important point and i think the time is right to begin to focus in this area. Clearly we need to continue our investment in the development of new treatments for people who are already affected by cancer. But we now know that probably about 50 of all cancers could be prevented. And this is by cessation of smoking in some cases. And also understanding of inherited risk and screening and Early Detection that can either improve cancer outcomes or prevent the disease. I think youre absolutely right. I think we now have enough scientific knowledge that it is time to really put some dedicated focus on cancer prevention. One of the areas of the Blue Ribbon Panel was a focus on what we call precision prevention. And capitalizing on our deep knowledge about cancers that run in families. We know that there are at least 50 different types of inherited cancer, and if we could identify everybody in the country that had that inherited predisposition and screen those folks, we might be able to prevent them from developing untreatable disease. In the class of a syndrome which by heard about from stephanie, know that there are about a Million People in the United States that have lynch syndrome which causes a predisposition to colorectal cancer, uterine cancer and a number of others. Only about 5 of the people who have that syndrome know they have t what that means for that them is they are doing the right thing going and getting colonoscopy at age 50. Because they have this syndrome they are developing colon cancer way before they are starget their screening. If we know who before they are starting their screening f we know who is at risk we can prevent those cancers in the first place. Save lives, save money. Mr. Cass kin i yield back. We recognize mrs. Watson coleman, new jersey. Ms. Watson coal thank you, chairman for calling this hearing. Cancer is a very, very personal thing with me. In 1983 my mother was diagnosed with lung cancer and the doctor told her that it did not respond to chemotherapy and nor was it operable. So we actually were very fortunate to get her into a protocol in Johns Hopkins. We lost my mother to that cancer within a six month period of time the doctor said it was going to happen. Nonetheless we had some hope during that period of time because we knew we were actively gaged in some cuttingedge antibodies, immunotherapy, that kind of thing. Lost my father to renal carcinoma. I have a niece now thats living with thyroid cancer. I lost cousins to other lung cancers and leukemia. O there is no sort of group of diseases that upset me more than cancer. And i think that while were talking about how to get out the word, how important this is, i dont think that there is a family in this country who is not personally touched by cancer. Whether its pediatric cancer, mrs. Carr, god bless you for using your tragedy to save so many more lives. You are such a courageous woman. But just alt different cancers. So i think that this is this budget is really very no one thought through this issue. I dont think anyones going to support even in Congress Taking money away from the National Institutes of health. But its more than cancer. Its diabetics. Im diabetic. I certainly would like not to be on the kind of medication im on. There are so many things that are happening that could possibly impact me even as an adult let alone as a there are so many things that annex me as a africanamerican differently that affect me as a africanamerican differently. I got a whole bunch of stuff happening here that i might need ome very specific scientific understanding, evaluation to get at a person like me. And i represent a good number of people in this contry. So i just want you to know that i will fight as hard as i can to make sure that we dont lose money. That we look at what is realistic in terms of our needs. There is no greater set of diseases to conquer than cancer. So i thank you, mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing and giving me an opportunity to speak. Thank you. Were at the conclusion here. I want to first of all thank dr. Dr. , dr. Jaffee and beckerle, you do rewarding work. Work that feakts every single american. To those of you who work with, you represent big institutions with lots and lots of people who work hard every day, behind the scenes, they dont necessarily get the spotlight that they deserve. I hope in some small way this Committee Hearing will do some of that. I hope you carry back to them how much we appreciate the work they do and how important it is. Sometimes it takes years, weeks, decades to find that breakthrough that may have come from something we didnt think it was going to come from. If it was easy, im sure you would have already solved t you are tackling some of the most difficult things that face our nation. We do have a duty and obligation to not only hear the stories and listen and but also to fund t were in a position to make a difference. Thats why i called this hearing. I think what the president s Budget Proposal was was is an embarrassment. Its not something i could support. Certainly that aspect of it. I do hope on both sides of the aisle you see us come together and have a very different outcome than what was proposed out of the white house. Nevertheless, there are things that we need to continue to learn. It is the committees intention to have another hearing. It would probably take a few months to put together. We would like to hear from very specific scientists talk about some of the most promising efforts. I think if members were also to hear not only the stories of the families that are affected by this, but also very specific cases. I have heard some Amazing Stories every once in a while, ill turn on everything from 60 minutes to something else, there is a big breakthrough thats right on the verge and maybe happening. We would like to also hear those stories. I think that would help members get a better grip. It is a big issue and you have helped illuminate that. But help us think through. I think we can also highlight the specific scientists and allow them to tell their story and answer questions because i think youll get a lot more people who will then want to fund that type of research because it is so promising. If you can help us identify that. To stephanie, thank you for being here. I appreciate it. I was very glad you came and we wish you nothing but the best. To c. J. And tommy, pretty boring, huh . Yeah. I would agree with you. But very important stuff. I think later on in life youll recognize and say, wow, my mom did that . Its not something she probably ever dreamed of. Nobody wants to come testify before congress, believe me. But to your mom and dad, thanks for their strength and sharing your story. And it is impactful. We do appreciate it. Obviously chad, we again wish you never had to go through that. But you have exemplified what im guessing are i dont know how to quantify it, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, i dont know how to quantify it, people and families who have gone through some things, too, and would probably you go to places you dont want to go, right . You dont want to be part of that club, as you said, but they also step up and they come and do it and do those hard things. And so we thank you for doing that and we appreciate you doing that. And wish your got a beautiful family. Thank you for sharing that. God bless you. The committee stands adjourned. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] if you missed any of this hearing on Cancer Research, can you see it on our website at an