Tom Harkin

Yes, TAP is a critical program that provides reimbursement for trees, like cherry trees and apple trees, which have been destroyed by natural disaster.

The Senator informed me from the beginning that specialty crops like apples, cherries, blueberries, cherries, and asparagus are critically important for Michigan's agriculture economy. She has been a powerful advocate for specialty crops…

Both gentlemen are correct. The programs directly funded by the CCC--EQIP, FPP, WHIP, and the CSP--as well as the acreage programs--CRP, WRP, and the GRP--include funding for technical assistance that comes out of the program funds. And…

The expectation is that USDA will extend edibility to a broad range of producer groups, including farmer and rancher cooperatives. Business ventures with majority control by producers may receive up to 10 percent of grants provided…

Senator Lincoln is absolutely correct that the intent is not to exclude these non-profit groups that are actively involved in delivery of conservation programs. The work that non-profit organizations do under these conservation programs…

I assure the Senator from Montana, as soon as this farm bill is over with, that as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I will try to bring our committee together, hopefully, as early as next week, to, once again, mark up an…

The Iowa Soybean Association Applauds the Completion of the 2002 Farm Bill by U.S. Senate and House Conferees today. ISA President John Hoffman said, "Soybeans are treated more equitably in relation to other program crops in this…

Every single person I talked to yesterday in my State of Iowa answered yes.

I think one of the purposes of our hearing is to try to clear the air a little and get a little more clarity for the women of this country.

It is very difficult to make up your mind when you are faced with a life-threatening illness.

I thought the answer to that was, all other things being equal, yes, it makes a difference.

Well, again, we're trying to clear this up and trying to get a definitive answer to women out there.

I believe that is true also, but I think early detection right now is still the best.

You said in your testimony that we have got to ask if mammography screening is the best use of finite dollars.

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

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

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

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

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

I guess we are playing some kind of a word game here.

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.'

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.

So far not. Therefore, it would seem to me logical that if a woman could find a cancer earlier, not knowing whether it is indolent or aggressive, and it could be removed with the least invasive procedure, it would seem to me she would be…

Of course, the ultimate goal of all the money that we have been putting into breast cancer research is to hopefully find a means of prevention, a vaccine or some other treatment that would be a preventive measure for 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.