Thank you very much, Brian. I mean what I said. You and Amber can come out and testify, and you can show the members of the committee how to mix the stuff.

That is an excellent suggestion. We are going to try and put this together.

We believe it is time to level the playing field here so that farm assistance is spread more equally among all farmers.

I am going to gavel the hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee officially to order.

We need to have those kinds of environmental incentives.

We believe that now is a historic opportunity for the Senate to pass a farm bill that is based on sensitive goals and realistic outcomes.

I have never seen an array of such complicated, interrelated, interwoven programs that you all have to contend with every day and every year of your life.

We can't afford another shakeout of family farmers. Then we won't have any left. This is the time to do it.

We need opportunity for everybody if they want to make their living on the land.

We believe that is good for all Minnesotans regardless of your political beliefs.

the future of agriculture is not a Republican issue. It is not a matter of right versus left. It is really right versus wrong.

Getting the choice is important to chemical companies, steel companies, coal companies, granaries, et cetera.

I really question the basic proposition that railroad rates or conduct in any way, including mergers, would be found invalid under the antitrust laws.

If they do not?

You can operate under rules that would be illegal for any other industry in this country to do.

But I do not think we should be subject to two regulatory regimes, to two masters. One master is enough.

We are, right.

Let me just simplify it to North America. Why is it that you should be able to operate under exemptions and an antitrust situation would be illegal in any other industry?