Well, if it is detected mammographically, and fewer than 50 percent metasticize, that is because something has been done, right?

I am wondering, though, if I will get comments on the floor that maybe this is not necessary.

We want to know odds-on what is the best thing to do.

I do not know how to respond to that. It would still seem to me, again as a layman, that the earlier you can detect a cancer, the better your prognosis is going to be.

I do have a bill in to increase that reimbursement rate for radiologists.

we could afford it, and that is part of what Senator Harkin and I have done.

the President to impose tariffs to allow the steel industry to revitalize itself.

We made a commitment 5 years ago as a Congress, the Senate and the House, that we were going to double funding for NIH.

Every 3 minutes, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer in this country.

They believe mammograms are a very useful tool.

We have a breast cancer epidemic in this country. Every three minutes, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer.

I have looked very carefully at the study that was done by Olsen and Gotzsche, and it seems to me that first of all, these were mammographies that were done in the 1960's and 1970's and maybe in the early 1980's.

In your statement, you say that 'Women with breast cancer detected mammographically have extremely good prognosis in comparison with those having cancer detected any other way.'

Mammography is not the sole thing, but in combination with other things it is a useful tool for early detection.

there is nothing more important than health.

we ought to leave that to the experts.

You are more than generous in your remarks about my work in this area, but I can assure you that I am just following your lead.

Had they had early intervention and early screening, I daresay they would have lived a lot longer.