Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I believe that probably everybody in the House and in the Senate has someone that they know or knew that had breast cancer or another form of cancer.

My first wife, Barbara, died about 8 years ago from cancer. I will never forget the day she felt a lump in her breast. She thought it was a fibrous tissue. She had them before, and she didn't want to go have herself tested. I said, I want you to go to the doctor and have him look at that. She did, and she called me a couple of days later when I was out here in Washington and she started crying and said, I've got breast cancer. Of course, I went back home and we went to the doctor and went through all of the things that you have to go through, including the chemotherapy. For any family that has gone through that, they know how very difficult it is. Had she had a mammogram earlier, she might not have had the breast cancer metastasize and go to other parts of her body. She ultimately passed way. It was a tragic thing to watch that.

That is why this bill, although it may sound like just a resolution, is very, very important. One of the things in the health care negotiations that has concerned me a great deal is that there was some talk about limiting mammograms to people 50 and above, and the people between 40 and 50 might not be included in getting mammograms and having coverage for that, either under the health plan or insurance plans.

I want to read you a letter from a young lady from my district in Noblesville, Indiana, Tonya Lewis. Here is what she says: ``I was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer in May of 2008 at age 39. I found this lump myself. I had a baseline mammogram at age 35. It came back clear. I was advised not to have another mammogram until age 40. The radiologist that read my mammogram at age 39 advised me that if I would have had a mammogram at age 36, 37, or 38, most likely I would not have had to have a mastectomy and 14 lymph nodes removed. My cancer spread to my lungs and chest wall after doing chemo and radiation. After completing nine different types of chemo, as of November 24, 2009, I am finally cancer free. Please fight for us breast cancer survivors and the young women in the future. I believe mammograms should be available and paid for by insurance companies at any age.''

When we talk about limiting breast cancer screening to people 50 and above, I think we make a mistake because breast cancer does kill. One in every eight women is going to get breast cancer in their lifetime and it is going to affect families across this country. I think we ought to make sure that we don't start limiting mammograms to only people 50 and above. It has been 40 and above for some time. In this particular case it wouldn't have helped her because she was in her thirties when she developed breast cancer. It is a very, very serious thing, and unless somebody has lived with it, they don't understand how horrible it is to watch somebody pass away going through the travails of cancer.

So I want to congratulate my colleagues on sponsoring this bill, and I hope in the negotiations on the health care bill, regardless of how it comes out, we make sure that we take care of the women who are suffering from these things and catch it before it becomes terminal.

Madam Speaker, in 8 minutes the polls will close in Massachusetts. I don't know whether Mr. Brown is going to win or whether he is going to lose, but one thing I do know is that this shows very clearly that the people across this country--moderate, liberal, conservative--are all concerned about what we're doing in this Chamber and the Chamber across the Capitol.

You know, a lot of people will say, Well, it's all about health care. I don't think it's just health care. I think health care's a big part of it, Madam

Speaker, but I think it's also the kind of chicanery that we're seeing going on right now.

When you buy somebody's vote with $300 million in Louisiana and you buy somebody's vote in Nebraska, and then when the unions start squealing because they think they're going to be paying too much for health insurance, you give them a $60 billion tax break, break on their premiums, people across the country start saying, Hey, what's going on? Is anybody up there honest? You're buying votes with taxpayers' money. That $60 billion break that the unions are going to get is going to be made up in part from a new tax or an additional tax on prosthetic devices and wheelchairs. The people who really need help are going to have to pay higher taxes for those things because you're giving a $60 billion break to the unions.

So, Madam Speaker, I'm not going to talk for the whole 5 minutes tonight. I just want to make this point very, very clear, and I hope my colleagues back in their offices are listening as well. There is a message being sent to Members of Congress. There is a message being sent to the Senators across the Capitol, and it is that people want honest, fair government. They don't want a socialist government. They don't want the Congress controlling their lives. They don't want to have a bureaucrat between themselves and the doctors that they go see on a regular basis. In short, they don't want that health care bill, and they certainly don't want more taxes, and they certainly don't want Members of the Senate and the House being bought off by bribes that are being given to them by the leadership in order to get their vote on this health care bill.

Regardless of what happens in, now, 6 minutes, I think that the people of this country have got the message. They don't want socialized medicine. They don't want more government control over their lives. So I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who may not be here right now, that they will take a hard look at the polling results and what happens tonight. Win, lose, or draw, it's going to show very clearly that an awful lot of Democrats, an awful lot of Independents as well as Republicans are very concerned about what's going on here in Washington.

I hope that down the road my colleagues who have political goals in mind will take all this to heart when they start casting their vote on this health care bill when it comes back from the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I beg to differ. I think that as long as I am speaking in a generic term, it's not something that's not allowed. We talk about the Senate all the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of Leader Boehner's 1-minute today.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I really get a big kick in listening to my Democrat colleagues when they talk about spending all this money on infrastructure and how we are not spending enough and how we need to come up with another stimulus bill. The fact of the matter is, since they took control of Congress, the national debt has gone up by almost $4 trillion. You can't spend your way out of debt. You can't create jobs by digging yourselves into a bigger and bigger hole, and that is exactly what they are talking about doing.

Now they say they have created jobs. They said that unemployment would not go above 8 percent, and they say they have created or saved 2 million jobs or thereabouts. The fact of the matter is 7 million jobs have been lost; lost. Seven million jobs have been lost.

Now, even if you said and accepted their premise that they saved or created 2 million jobs, you would still be

5 million jobs in the hole, and the unemployment rate isn't 8 percent. It is 10 percent, and it was up above that, and I believe it probably will get there again.

You know, I just can't understand why they don't get it. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, he got it. He said time and again when he was President, if you give people more disposable income, they will spend it to buy more products. And if you give more income back to business and industry through tax cuts, as I was just talking about with individuals, that will give them more money for investment and to hire employees. And if people and industry go out and spend that tax cut, then they are going to have to produce more products; more refrigerators, more cars, more vacuum sweepers, whatever it is. And if people buy more because they have more money to spend collectively across the country, 300 million people, then you are going to see employment rise; employment rise, not unemployment.

John F. Kennedy understood that, and that is why early in his administration he put through tax cuts. And then when Ronald Reagan came in after the debacle called the Carter administration where we have unemployment at 12 percent and inflation at 14 percent, worse than we have today even, Reagan came in and said we are going to cut taxes. And I think he even mentioned John F. Kennedy. And so Reagan, Yeah, well, we are going to cut taxes instead of raising taxes. So they cut taxes and we worked our way out of a very severe recession. We created millions of jobs and had an economic expansion that lasted 20 years because we cut taxes and gave people their money back, some of it, and we gave business and industry some of their money back so they could make investment. That's the way you do it.

And yet the Democrats and the Obama administration are talking about the tax cuts that were put into place early in the Bush administration. They want to let them expire this year, which is going to be a drain on the economy, take more money out of people's pockets, more money out of business and industry, and exacerbate the economy, the economic problems we are facing.

And so when I hear my colleagues come down--I love to listen to their rhetoric. Their logic eludes me, though, because you are not going to solve the unemployment problems or the economic problems in this country by loading more debt and more taxes on the backs of the American people. You are going to cause the future generations to look back at us and say, Why did you do that to us, because you are going to have inflation and you are going to have higher taxes and you are going to have a deteriorating economy, and you are going to have the government taking over more and more responsibility, which is what a lot of socialists in this administration would like to see. They believe government can do the job better than the private sector. Obviously, most Americans don't agree with that if you look at the polls lately just on the health care bill alone.

So I would just like to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that if we are serious about solving the economic problems, let's take a look at history. Let's look at what they did in the Kennedy administration. Let's look at what they did in the Reagan administration, and let's say we are going to extend the tax cuts. We are going to cut taxes further right now because it will give people more disposable income, give more money for business and industry to invest, and people and industry will buy more; therefore, they will produce more products and more people will go back to work and you will lower the unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate today, it is not 10 percent, incidentally. There are a lot of people who have been getting unemployment checks that aren't included anymore. It is more like 15 to 17 percent, and this administration is responsible for it.

My Democrat colleagues, Mr. Speaker, are going to solve the health care problems of this country with a 2,100-plus page bill, and it's going to simplify the whole procedure and make everything better. But let me just give you an example of how things go awry.

We passed an amendment in this body that deals with the Internal Revenue Code so people would buy more green cars that weren't going to pollute the atmosphere, and bioelectric cars. Well, John Stossel of Fox network saw where there were free golf carts and called up, and he found out that he could get a golf cart for $6,490, but because Congress screwed up with the tax code, he could get all of that money back from the taxpayers of this country, in essence, getting that golf cart for free.

That's how government continues to screw up. And if you think that's bad, just think what's going to happen if we pass this terrible health care bill that's going to raise taxes and ration health care and hurt seniors because it's going to cause them to lose a lot of their Medicare and Medicare Advantage coverage.

That's why we shouldn't be rushing to judgment on the health care bill. This is the kind of screw-up that should not take place.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I get a big kick out of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle who continue to beat on the Bush administration. I mean, we're not in the Bush administration. We are in the Obama administration. And the Obama administration this year has outlined a $3.55 trillion budget. They always seem to come down when they talk about President Bush and his administration, some of the shortcomings--and there has never been an administration that didn't have some shortcomings--but they don't talk much about what's happened since they took power.

When the Democrats took over Congress less than 3 years ago, the national debt was under $9 trillion. It went from $9 trillion to $10 trillion to $11 trillion to over $12 trillion. That's just in the last 3 years. They're spending money like it's going out of style. They have increased the national debt limit five times in just the last 3 years, and the increase of $3.4 trillion is 38 percent-plus over what the national debt was when they took control of this Chamber and the other Chamber. It really bothers me when they talk about all this in retrospect and they don't pay any attention to what's going on now and what should be going on in the future.

They're talking about a national health care plan now that is going to cost, I believe, $3 trillion over the next decade, and they're behind closed doors, trying to ram that thing through without really having even a conference committee. They're doing it with just the leaders, and they're doing it in a smoke-filled room with--well, maybe they don't smoke. But they are doing it in a closed room where nobody can see--not even C-SPAN, even though they promised that they would.

Now let's just look at what's happened since they took power with the

White House as well as the House and the Senate since January of 2009. They passed the state Children's Health Insurance Program Reorganization Act, which was $73.3 billion. Then in February, they passed the stimulus bill, which has not worked. Unemployment, which was not supposed to go over 8 percent, went over 10 percent. Now it's at least 10 percent. And that bill was $1.16 trillion when you include interest.

Also in February, they passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was $410 billion. When you add interest to it, it's $625 billion. Then in June of 2009, they passed the defense supplemental, which was not a bad deal because we had to do something about our military personnel in combat around the world, protecting our freedoms. But in addition to what we were doing for our military personnel and defense, they had all kinds--I think they had 3,000 or 4,000 pork barrel projects stuck in there. Then in December, they passed a consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 which was $3.554 trillion.

Now the President has said just in the last couple of days, we have to do something about spending. Man, that is really, really a great statement. I wish he'd thought about that about a year ago when he first took office. But nevertheless, it's better to be aware of it now than to not do anything about it at all. But he's talking about cutting spending by between 3 and 5 percent on discretionary spending, and that's going to amount to--oh, maybe $150 billion. But he's spending $3.55 trillion. So you're still going to have about $3.4 trillion, even if we were to cut spending by about 3 to 5 percent.

The spending is completely out of control. The health care bill they're talking about is not going to start providing coverage, benefits until 2013, and yet the taxes start right now, which means simply that the $1 trillion they are talking about being the cost of that health care plan is not going to be $1 trillion; it's going to be at least $1.5 trillion. And if it's anything like other government programs that they have rammed through in the past, it will double that. And I really believe we are going to see a $3 trillion cost to the health care bill in this next decade if they pass it.

I'm very hopeful that the Senate--some Senator, at least one or two-- will see the light and realize the American people simply don't want that. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want anything coming between them and their doctor, especially government. They don't want socialized medicine, and they don't want all this spending. They want to do what Ronald Reagan did back in the early 1980s when he came in, and the situation was even worse then. We had 12 percent unemployment. We had 14 percent inflation, a misery index of 26 percent--that's what they called it.

And Reagan came in, instead of raising taxes, as many of his advisers said he should do, he said, No, no, I'm going to cut taxes. I'm going to cut taxes across the board for individuals, for businesses, for corporations, for industry. Because if we give them more of their tax money back, they'll be able to spend more on investment. They'll be able to spend more to buy cars and refrigerators and everything else. And as a result, the economy turned around, and we had a 20-year expansion of the economy, which was unparalleled in my lifetime.

Yet we haven't learned from John F. Kennedy, and we haven't learned from President Reagan. We're doing exactly the opposite. We're spending money like it's going out of style and coming up with new government programs which are going to cost jobs and dig us into a debt that we're never going to get out of. It's going to cause inflation and higher taxes. What we should be doing right now, as I have said on this floor many times, is we should go back to the Reagan and John F. Kennedy formula and cut taxes, give this economy a real shot in the arm by letting people keep more of their money, and you will see us create jobs. We won't have 10 percent unemployment in a year or two or three. It will be down. It will be going down. It will be going down fairly rapidly once this starts to take hold.

But as long as we just keep spending and spending and spending and digging ourselves into a deeper hole by coming up with new programs like this crazy health care bill they're talking about, we're never going to solve our problem. And our kids and our grandkids and the posterity of this country are going to look back and say, Why did you do this to us? Why did you do this to us?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I was just thinking about the people back home who may be watching this. They hear the Democrats blaming the Republicans for all of these things that are costing so much money, and that's the reason we have to raise the national debt. You know, I looked at a $1.4 trillion deficit last year, and we're already ahead of that this year. We are not in charge. You folks are.

The health care bill that you're trying to ram through is going to cost $1 trillion to $3 trillion, and the stimulus bill is going to cost over $1 trillion when you add interest.

The bottom line is we have got to stop spending. We are spending too much money. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, the American people back home are saying, Get your house in order. Quit spending so much money. Live within your means like we have to.

We have 10 percent unemployment right now, and the people back home don't want us wasting money that will end up resulting in our having to raise taxes, which we don't want to do and which I won't vote for, and end up resulting in inflation, which is going to be hung on our kids in the future. So we have to quit spending instead of just raising the debt.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor. God bless you, my son.

Let me just say that I have heard the arguments from the opponents of this legislation. And my question to them would be, well, what is the alternative? You mentioned one, two, three, four, five, six--seven reasons why we shouldn't do this, but Iran is developing a nuclear weapons system.

If you look at The Times and the BBC, they say very clearly that confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times showed that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb, and it is the

mechanism that explodes the nuclear bomb. Now, we've been waiting and waiting and waiting for years for them to stop the development of a nuclear weapon, and they keep giving us all these reasons why they shouldn't be stopped and why they're not doing it and all kinds of chicanery; but the fact of the matter is they continue on the path toward a nuclear weapon.

Now, we get a large percentage of our energy from the Middle East. Israel is not going to sit by and let their country be threatened with annihilation. They're not going to let Iran develop a nuclear weapon, especially since Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe them off the face of the Earth. So if they develop a nuclear weapon and a detonating device, like they're working on right now, Israel is going to do something about it. Now, do we want a major conflagration in the Middle East that would threaten the energy that we get in this country? We get about 40 percent of our energy from the Middle East. If you mess up the Persian Gulf, if you have that whole area explode, you're going to see all kinds of problems in getting oil from the Middle East. And we're not energy independent. Everybody in this country is going to suffer because it's going to hurt our economy from top to bottom.

So I wish my colleagues would stop and think, do we let them just go on and not do anything about it, or do we start ratcheting up the pressure on them, put a little pressure on them, make them stop developing this nuclear weapon system? Because if they don't, the alternative is unthinkable.

Mr. Speaker, I get a big kick out of listening to the colloquy between the leadership people every week when we come to the end of the week and we start talking about the program for the following week. If I were an American citizen, sitting at home, watching this, I'd be so confused about what's going on. So I felt compelled tonight to come down here and just talk a little bit about what's going on so my colleagues back in their offices--and if anybody else is paying any attention--can really find out what's going on in this place.

This last fiscal year just passed. We went in the hole $1.4 trillion. So far, this fiscal year, in 2 months, we're ahead of last year's fiscal year. We were $1.4 trillion in the hole this last fiscal year, and we're already ahead of that this year. The health care bill that is pending in the Senate is going to cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion--probably closer to $3 trillion if it passes. We passed an omnibus spending bill yesterday that cost $447 billion. Now, these aren't millions. We are talking about billions and trillions. The cap- and-trade bill that they are talking about, which is going to raise everybody's electric bills and gasoline bills and gas bills to heat their homes, is going to cost $894 billion.

We are digging ourselves into a hole that is unbelievable. Yet I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, You know, we're going to create jobs; we're going to solve these problems; everything is coming up roses. It isn't.

I talked to some of the pages in the back today, young people who are out here who are getting a chance to see how Congress works. I actually feel sorry for them because we are creating an environment where, when they grow up and get out and get a job, they are going to be faced with very high inflation and with very high taxes. There is no way to pay for all of the things we are doing the way we are going. There is just no way.

With Medicare and Medicaid, Medicare is close to being bankrupt. On the other side, they are talking about lowering the age to 55 of the people who can become participants in Medicare. That's another 30-some million people they want to add to it, and it's supposed to go bankrupt in the next 3, 4, or 5 years. I mean it just does not make sense.

In addition to that--and these are all facts--they want to increase taxes, and they want to let the tax cuts we passed in about 2001 expire, which means that's a tax increase. If they expire, then taxes are going to go up, so they are going to raise taxes that way as well.

They talk about jobs and the economy. Taking money from the taxpayer and throwing it at the economy is not working. They tried that with the stimulus bill--over $1 trillion, when you include interest--and the jobless rate went up to 10.2 percent. The President said before he took office that he wouldn't let it go above 8 percent. Now they're bragging because it's back down to 10 percent, and it's probably going to go up again.

You can't create jobs with government money and by throwing money at it. You've got to do something to stimulate the small business man and the private sector. The way you do that is the way Ronald Reagan did it.

You come in, and you say to the businessman, Okay. We are going to cut your taxes so you can keep people on the payroll and can hire people and can produce more product.

You say to the consumer, the guy who is working, We're going to cut your taxes. You'll have more money to go out and buy a refrigerator or a car or something else.

Because of that, you create a demand economy. You start creating people wanting to buy things. Producers are going to produce things. You're going to have more people working because you're going to need people working to produce those things. That's what Reagan did, and we had 20 years of economic growth. They're doing just the opposite right now.

Right now, this administration and the Democrats in Congress are taking over the automobile industry. We all know that. They are trying to take over the health industry with socialized medicine, which is one-sixth of our economy. They are trying to take over the energy area, which is going to raise everybody's cost of electricity, gasoline, and gas with a cap-and-trade bill. They are trying to control completely the financial industry--the banks and Wall Street and everything else.

Socialism simply does not work. Blowing taxpayers' money like we are doing does not work. We are creating an environment right now where we are going to see real economic chaos, and I believe everybody in America feels it. When I go to my town meetings and have 500 or 600 people show up when we used to have 40, they feel it. They know what's going on, and they want government to get out of the way. They want jobs created, but they know that it has to be created through the private sector. Government can't give unless it takes, and it is taking and taking and taking and taking.

So I would just like to say to my colleagues back in their offices and to anybody else who pays attention--and if I were talking to the American people, I'd say--Call your Congressmen and Senators, and tell them to stop this madness.

I get such a big kick out of that hollering and yelling over there. Maybe I should get my voice up here real quick. You know, Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. And when we talk about socialism, I just suggest you go look in the dictionary and read what it says as far as the definition is concerned.

My Democrat colleagues have moved to take over the auto industry, the health industry, the energy industry, and now they're trying do it through the bureaucracy, and now they're doing it with the banking industry and the financial institutions of this country. Now, when the government takes over the private sector, that's socialism. And if you don't believe it, look it up in the dictionary.

You know, this was tried back in the 1930s when Roosevelt was President. He passed what was called the National Recovery Act, and he tried to do it in one fell swoop. You guys are doing it incrementally, but you're doing the same thing they tried to do back then. There were two guys that came over from Europe who sold chickens, and they had these chickens in a crate. And they let people pick out the chickens they wanted to buy because the people could pick the fat ones or whatever ones they wanted. And the National Recovery Act officials came in and said, you can't do that; you have to take the first chicken you grab because you might leave some of the skinny ones for the people that come later. That case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and Justice Brandeis, who was not a conservative, he was a liberal judge, he wrote the opinion. And the vote was 9-0 saying that it was unconstitutional to have the National Recovery Act because it was socialism. And that's what you're doing right now to this economy.

And I think everybody in America that's paying attention really understands it. You're running us in the ground financially, and you're putting all the control you can under the government. And the future generations are going to suffer because of that.

And so I'd just like to say to my colleagues tonight on the other side of the aisle, we believe we should solve these problems--and there are problems. But we believe we should do it the way Ronald Reagan did, instead of taxing the people to death, putting more control in government and putting us in a debt that we'll never get out of, and saddle our kids and posterity with something that they'll curse us for down the road.

So what I say to my colleagues, and I hope my colleague who just spoke is still around here, he probably left, go to the dictionary, and if you need one, I'll get it for you, and look up ``socialism,'' and you'll see what you're doing is socialism.

I get a big kick out of my Democrat colleagues, for whom I have the highest respect. They're talking about how they're going to come up with a jobs bill. They've increased the debt this year by $1.4 trillion. They're pushing through a health care bill, trying to ram it through, that's going to cost $1 trillion to $3 trillion. They're trying to push through a cap-and-trade bill that's going to cost millions of jobs. And now, because they're worried about whether they're going to get reelected or not, they're coming down here and saying that they're going to come up with another jobs bill.

What that means is another stimulus bill. The first stimulus bill did not work. It cost over $1 trillion when you include interest, and now they're going to do it again. The way to create jobs is to take the heavy weight off the back of the American people by cutting their taxes and cutting business taxes like John F. Kennedy did and like Ronald Reagan did. If you do that, you'll start seeing economic recovery--but not by blowing more money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 727, which expresses the House of Representatives' support for the goals and ideals of National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. As many of my colleagues hopefully know, on August 31, 2009, President Obama issued a Presidential Proclamation officially declaring September National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, and calling on every American to do their part to increase awareness of what Americans can do to prevent and control ovarian cancer. Rising to the challenge, throughout September, all across the Nation, men and women came together for events to both raise awareness of this terrible scourge and to show their support for the women and families struggling with this horrible disease--the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers.

While National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month may be over for 2009, the fight against ovarian cancer goes on. When it is detected early, ovarian cancer is very treatable; unfortunately, ovarian cancer is one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because symptoms are sometimes subtle and may be easily confused with those of other diseases. As a result, only 29 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the early stages. When the disease is detected before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 95 percent of women will survive longer than five years. But, in cases where the disease is not detected until it reaches the advanced stage, the five-year survival rate plummets to a devastating 25 percent.

As there is still no reliable and easy-to-administer screening test for ovarian cancer, like the Pap smear for cervical cancer or the mammogram for breast cancer; early recognition of symptoms is clearly the best way to save a woman's life. Increased education and awareness about ovarian cancer, along with recognition of women who are at higher risk for developing ovarian cancer, is the only way that women and their doctors will be able to stop ignoring or misinterpreting the subtle symptoms of the disease.

In 2007, the American Cancer Society and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance came to a consensus on the identifiable symptoms of

ovarian cancer. If a woman experiences any of the following symptoms for at least three weeks--bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, frequent or urgent need to urinate--she should immediately see her gynecologist. I urge all of my colleagues to remember those symptoms and I ask each and every one of you to please make a special point of discussing them with your mothers, your wives and your daughters; and encourage them to talk about these symptoms with other women. The simple fact is that ignorance kills. The more women know what to look for, the more lives we can save. If we love our mothers, our wives and our daughters, and I am sure that we do, then we owe it to them to make the effort to talk with them about ovarian cancer.

The word ``cancer'' evokes powerful emotions. Along with many of my colleagues, I know firsthand how devastating cancer can be to the individual who has been diagnosed as well as their family. And I would like to pay a small homage to a constituent of mine and a dear friend, Kolleen Stacy, who recently lost her own personal battle with ovarian cancer. Kolleen first brought the issue of ovarian cancer to my attention, and it was her passion to protect other women from the scourge of ovarian cancer that convinced me to champion this cause in the People's House. Today's debate is a victory for all women, but in my mind, the fact that we are having this debate, the fact that in 2009 there is even such a thing as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month is a tribute to the dedication and commitment of women like Kolleen Stacy. God bless you Kolleen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 727. It is literally a matter of life and death.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the President is going to say in his speech, and I just got part of it, that his sending 30,000 American troops over there is a step in the right direction for stabilizing Afghanistan. But then he goes on and he says it will allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

The one thing that you should never do is telegraph your punch. I can't imagine why the President is saying in his speech tonight he's going to start withdrawing our troops in July of 2011. Even if he plans to do that, he shouldn't say it, because he's telling our enemies exactly what we're going to do, and it's just wrong. And every military officer I have ever met will tell you the same thing.

Madam Speaker, last month in Zurich, Switzerland, with the strong support of the United States, the foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia took an unprecedented step forward in their efforts to overcome decades of animosity and distrust between their two countries.

Almost before the ink was dry special interest groups in both countries and abroad who profit from the status quo were attacking the deal which means that there are still immense hurdle left before Turkey and Armenia full normalize diplomatic and bilateral relations. Nevertheless, the two protocols offering a ``road map'' signed on October 10, 2009, is the right course of action for both countries. The process is very fragile, but enjoys the support of the international community.

The protocols have been submitted to the Turkish and Armenian parliaments for debate and ratification. The stage is now set for the two parliaments to both deliberate the contents of and hopefully pass the protocols. It will not be an easy vote but the political, economic and international benefits for both sides are enormous; that is if Turks and Armenians are willing to take the chance for real peace; and willing to give up business as usual.

For years I have come to this Floor advocating that issues concerning Turkey and Armenia should be resolved at the negotiating table by the two countries in question. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this process.