Collin Peterson

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in opposition to this bill, which threatens the ability of the Agriculture Committee to develop farm policy that addresses the new challenges that face American agriculture. For 16 years I have represented a rural district in Congress, and during that time I have served on the Agriculture Committee, helping to write the last three farm bills. Those of us who serve on the Agriculture Committee have spent a lot of time learning about and talking to those involved in American agriculture. We have a responsibility to develop farm policy that is fiscally responsible and that keeps our farmers competitive and strong. As the Agriculture Committee begins the process of writing the next farm bill, we will try to address the many emerging challenges that face American producers. As we consider priorities for agriculture, any new investments in bioenergy, conservation, specialty crops, and other programs, the farm bill will face yet a new hurdle. The farm bill has always had an uphill battle. As our country moves away from its agriculture roots, we must constantly reach out to our urban and suburban colleagues. Now we would face the real possibility that the President would veto the spending priorities that we set with input from all of agriculture, and, in my opinion, this could threaten the very delicate balance that we must maintain in the committee. If we pass this bill and allow the President to cancel any new direct spending item, we will gut the Agriculture Committee's ability to create farm policy that addresses the new and changing world that our producers face. In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that in 1993, when Democrats controlled the Congress and the Presidency, we reduced spending $192 billion over 5 years. Why is it that the Republicans can only hand us more deficit spending and a spiraling debt? This Line Item Veto Act is an admission, in my opinion, of the inability on the other side to control spending. This bill fails to recognize what we should be doing: working together in Congress and with the White House to set priorities and to spend the taxpayers' money responsibly.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just a couple of comments here. Whatever you want to say about this, this program does not cost the taxpayers any money. There has been no cost for the last number of years, and I guess you could make the argument that it maybe has some impact on the prices consumers pay, but I would just like to read to the gentleman on the other side of this what the consumers think about this. We just did a poll on this, and they were asked, how concerned are you about sugar prices? Thirty-three percent are concerned; 64 percent are not concerned. They were asked: Still thinking of the sugar price in 2005, the average price is 43 cents. The average price in 1990 was 43 cents. In 1980, it was 43 cents. So what do you think about this? Twenty-seven percent said it was expensive; 69 percent said it is not expensive. How important do you think it is for the United States to be able to produce food domestically instead of with foreigners? The previous gentleman was talking about the Europeans. Right now, if we got rid of the sugar program, we would end up importing sugar from Europe which has a price 50 percent higher than the price in the United States. So, when asked about that, the consumers, these are consumers, said that 93 percent think it is important we produce it here in the United States; 6 percent think it is not important. So you vote on the line with the American consumers, and they are not concerned about this. I tell you who is concerned about this is the people that use sugar in their candy bars and other kinds of things, and I will guarantee you we can cut the price of sugar in half or to a quarter what it is now, and I will guarantee you the price of a Hershey bar will not change in the grocery store. We have seen that over the years. So this is a good program. We are bringing in 1.5 million tons of sugar that we do not need in this country. Mr. Pomeroy's and my farmers, in North Dakota and Minnesota, could produce all that sugar right here in the United States, but we bring it in, and we help 41 countries, most of them poor countries. This is a program that has worked. It has been consistent. It makes sense. It does not cost the taxpayers any money. The consumers in the United States support it, and we should defeat this amendment and continue this program going and have any discussion that we are going to have in the farm bill next year.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition of this amendment. Although I have to say that the way the Department so far has administered this thing, I have some sympathy for what you are saying, but not for the same reasons. We have spent $84 million so far. We haven't accomplished a whole lot. In Canada, they put this up for $6 million. In Australia, they set their system up for $10 million. We could have done this for a lot less money if we had gone about it in the right way. I introduced a bill some time ago to make a mandatory system. But the fact of the matter is, if you don't think we need a national ID system in this country, you have got your head in the sand, because we are going to have a problem. It is going to be foot and mouth, or it will be something else. If we don't have a system, we are in big trouble. We are never going to get back in the Japanese market, some of these other markets, if we don't have an ID system in this country that works. So this is not the right way to go, and I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to I guess reluctantly support the bill. I have been looking over the provisions, and I think that while I commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for their work, given the constraints that they have been placed under, but I do have some concerns that I would like to raise. You know, in the last farm bill, 2002 Farm Bill, we made a significant shift in the biggest increases that we placed in the 2002 Farm Bill were in the conservation programs. And we have some limitations that have been put in the bill that have been protected against a point of order, that I have some concerns about and other people across the country have concerns about. Our Wetlands Reserve Program, which I think has been one of the most successful programs that we have implemented and was part of the 2002 farm bill, we are going to be further limiting the level to 144,000 acres. This is a program that has a substantial backlog. We have a lot of folks out there that are ready to go and put their land into the Wetlands Reserve Program and, you know, just does not seem logical that we would eliminate it given the amount of interest that is out there in the countryside. The EQUIP Program was another program that we substantially increased in the 2002 farm bill. And again, we have many more requests than we have money and authorization. And we are going to have some further limitations in that area as well, as well as the CSP program, the WHIP program and some others. So I just want to raise my concern about those limitations and I guess my displeasure from the authorizing committee point of view that the appropriators would be limiting the work of the Agriculture Committee that has spent a lot of time looking into them. I would also like to follow up on the comments of Mr. Obey regarding the milk program. Wherever you are at on that particular issue, I think this does have implications out into the next farm bill. I know in our part of the country this is a popular program. In the west it is not popular. But eliminating this baseline is going to make it more difficult for us as we do the next farm bill next year, and it could come back to haunt some folks in the dairy area potentially given how that all plays out. The peanut provision which also was not protected is something that was worked out in the last farm bill and is important to a lot of folks that had to have a substantial change in that program, and I just do not think it is right to end that program a year early. It would make more sense, I think, to continue it to the ends of the bill. I am going to support this bill today. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work, and I look forward to the debate.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield to Mr. Baird such time as he may consume.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4200, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, and I want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Walden and Mr. Baird, for their leadership and hard work in crafting this much-needed bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill. H.R. 4200 resulted from the devastation caused by the 2002 Biscuit wildfire in southern Oregon where 500,000 acres were destroyed. Unfortunately, the struggles did not end when the fire was extinguished. Post-fire recovery efforts were hampered by an exceedingly slow administrative response caused by procedural delays, administrative appeals and litigation. These delays resulted in significant losses of marketable salvage timber, the sales of which helps fund restoration efforts. In Minnesota's Superior National Forest, we had a different kind of catastrophic event in July of 1999. A major windstorm with wind speeds of up to 100 miles an hour swept across northern Minnesota, impacting about 477,000 acres within the Superior National Forest. Although the Forest Service did a good job of recovering and restoring forest resources in that case, we can always do better. For example, it took the Feds almost 4 months to organize salvage timber sales on a small portion of the impacted lands and more than a year to organize the remaining sales. By that time, some of the most valuable timber had lost most of its value. This legislation offers additional tools to facilitate sales more quickly where the salvageable timber is at risk of degrading in quality. Looking forward, the Forest Service predicts another record-breaking fire season. Since December, drought conditions, coupled with the high temperatures and wind that resulted in over 17,000 wildfires and an estimated 1.5 million acres burned, fire officials have expressed concern that the Southwest and Great Plains are at a risk of similar devastation as seen in Texas and Oklahoma these past months. While the Healthy Forest Restoration Act provided tools to care for our forests, we need to make sure that we have the tools in place to support recovery and restoration efforts after a catastrophic event. H.R. 4200 improves this process and paves the way for prompt evaluations and development plans while meeting environmental requirements. I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 4200, and I encourage my colleagues to support final passage.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Gutknecht amendment along with my fellow MN Colleagues. In January these soldiers wrote to me and every member of the MN delegation asking for help. And I believe as their representatives we have an obligation to address their concerns. This amendment will correct a technicality that is affecting 400 Minnesota National Guardsmen who are now serving in Iraq. And who knows how many other hundreds or even thousands of reservists all over the country have fallen victim to a similar technicality . Most of these soldiers had previously served on active duty in 2003, some in Bosnia and the others in Kosovo. The two groups were activated by different orders and now both of these groups are activated together under the same order in Iraq. The soldiers who served in Bosnia are not eligible for the extra $1,000 per month in incentive pay because their tours cannot be added together due to a mere technicality. This issue is about fairness. Unless something is done to change this Army policy, these soldiers and their families will lose out on $6,000 to $7,000 in extra pay. They are making a huge sacrifice for our country and this is the least we can and should do for these men and women.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise as well today to congratulate the Minnesota National Guard for their 150th anniversary, which I believe is officially on April 17. And it is with great pride that I do this because, as people have said, we have great shoulders in the Minnesota National Guard. As has been mentioned by other speakers, they have a rich history, 2 years older than the State of Minnesota. They have participated in every military action that we have been involved in in this country. And as was mentioned today, we have over 2,600 soldiers that have recently been deployed, some of them yesterday, I believe, to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Many of those soldiers are from my district. Soldiers, too, of the 136th Infantry, called the Bearcats, they were also deployed in Bosnia. I had an opportunity to visit them there. I was as well in Camp Shelby a couple times to visit those folks. And typical of the Minnesota tradition, the Bearcats racked up the highest scores in the training that was done in Mississippi, higher than a lot of our regular Army forces. So we are very proud of them, and they believe in their mission. They are ready to go, and I am sure they are going to uphold the fine tradition of the Minnesota National Guard. I would also like to recognize and thank their families, their loved ones, and their communities and their employers because those are the folks that probably have got the toughest job in this whole situation, especially with these people that have been deployed two or three times in the last 5 years, which a lot of these soldiers have. So we want to recognize them as well. I also would like to recognize and thank the Guard and the members that are currently deployed to my communities in the Seventh District of Minnesota along the Red River in the north. We are again having another flood event up there that we seem to have every once in a while. We had a very serious one in 1997, where events very similar to what happened in New Orleans happened in the Red River Valley. The Guard did an outstanding job during that particular event. And today we have 136 Guardsmen that have been deployed up to the Red River Valley, and they are helping us get through this event again today. I also want to applaud the State of Minnesota, which has undertaken a conscientious policy of providing pay differential to State employees that serve in the National Guard. Of the approximately 12,000 Guard members in the State, about 500 of them work for the State of Minnesota, and their lives and the lives of their families, during this difficult time of activation, have been made easier by Minnesota's pay differential policy. Mr. Speaker, I am also a cosponsor and strong supporter of legislation that would allow the Federal Government to follow Minnesota and provide pay differential for Federal employees activated in the Guard and Reserve. I hope that this body will pass this legislation soon, because it has worked well in Minnesota, and I know it will work well for the rest of the country. So, once again, I rise to congratulate the men and women of the Minnesota National Guard on their 150th anniversary, and thank all of them for their service to the State of Minnesota and their service to the country. I know that they will make us proud, as they always have.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have any additional speakers, and so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the bill before us, and I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and the other members of the committee for their hard work and cooperation. I would also like to acknowledge the gentlemen from California, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Baca, Mr. Cardoza and Mr. Costa, who have worked diligently to bring this important issue to the attention of the House. Though this bill is not perfect, Mr. Speaker, it will begin to solve an imbalance in our regulatory structure. However, it ignores the fact that the real solution is for California to join the Federal Dairy System. Right now, one handler in Yuma, Arizona, is using a loophole in the current system to sell from a Federal milk market area into California and is not paying the minimum milk price that either institution has in place. This practice is disrupting the marketplace and undermining the goal of fairness that the regulatory system should encourage. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill offers a piecemeal approach when dairy policy really needs a more comprehensive adjustment. The bill will begin to address the problem more immediately, but will leave more work to be done for a later time. Mr. Speaker, even as one part of this bill is written to ensure that the Yuma handler is on the same regulatory playing field as his competitors, the bill's second provision completely exempts Nevada processors from regulation. So one provision requires that similar rules apply to all handlers, while the other gives special status to handlers in Nevada. It may be that the exemption for Nevada will allow the Yuma handler to regain unregulated status that the bill is meant to take away. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the goal of this bill is to level the playing field between producers and handlers, which is what I hope it will do despite the fact that it is not a particularly comprehensive solution. Without feedback from hearings and from the USDA regarding implementation of this bill, we cannot be sure that it will resolve the problem that is occurring now with the plant in Yuma, Arizona. Who is to say that the same issue will not arise elsewhere? Are we going to legislate milk price regulation every time a new milk processing plant opens? I hope not. Finally, I must reiterate that the entire problem addressed by this bill could be solved if California belonged to the Federal order system. We need our policy to recognize that no State, even California, is isolated from the dairy marketplace. Each day raw milk and processed dairy products cross the California border in both directions. Despite that fact, California has taken various actions to isolate itself; most notably, in 2003 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against California's position that its system was protected from scrutiny under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. California has attempted to stop the flow of raw milk from Nevada to California processors by requiring that the processors pay an extra fee into the California pool, a contribution that was not shared with producers supplying that milk. Mr. Speaker, that California even felt the need to tax incoming milk in that way is a sign that the system is becoming unsustainable. Although this bill before us today is needed and is not perfect, I just have to say that it does little to address the broader problems that arise from the two systems operating side by side. So I am here today to support this bill because it will give us a short-term solution to the problem. And I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move ahead, my colleagues in the dairy industry, to develop a more sensible plan for the long term. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman's amendment. Several of my colleagues have raised valid concerns about the importance of warning labels for specific serious health issues, including birth defects and cancer-causing agents. I believe the language in the gentleman's amendment improves the underlying bill by allowing for an expedited review process by the FDA. If a State identifies a health issue fitting the critical categories listed in the amendment, then a warning is necessary, and this amendment allows FDA to enact the warning nationally, not just in the State that proposes it, granting greater consumer protection everywhere, and if the FDA approves a State's request for a warning, it is important for consumers not just in that State, but all States, to have that information. As I said during the general debate on this bill, we have the world's safest food supply, the lowest cost to its consumers, and every American benefits from a system of national food safety standards. This amendment and the underlying bill builds on the record of success that we have had in this system by extending the same approach to food safety standards that is used by USDA and other agencies. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment and to oppose any amendments that would gut this bill.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the nation watched with pride and admiration as the United States Men's and Women's Olympic Curling teams competed at the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin, Italy. I am proud to point out that both teams hail from Bemidji, Minnesota in the 7th Congressional District. The city of Bemidji sent more athletes per capita to the 2006 Winter Olympics than any other town in America. The athletes on both Olympic Curling teams call the Bemidji Curling Club their home. One of the premier curling clubs in the United States, the Bemidji Curling Club has captured more than 50 state and national titles in its outstanding 71-year history. The Club will also host the U.S. World Team Trials from March 4th through 12th. For curlers and curling fans Bemidji is the place to be. The sport of curling dates to 16th century Scotland where games were played during winter on frozen ponds, lochs and marshes. Curling's popularity spread during the 19th century to many nations in Europe, as well as to the United States, New Zealand, and Canada. It is now played in over 35 countries throughout the world. Both of the U.S. Olympic Curling teams from Bemidji faced tough competition from the very best teams the world has to offer. With the world watching they demonstrated their skills on one of sport's grandest stages and brought honor and praise to themselves and Members of the Women's team were Cassie Johnson, Jamie Johnson, Jessica Schultz, Maureen Brunt, Courtney George and Coach Neil Doese. The Men's team consisted of Pete Fenson, Shawn Rojeski, Joe Polo, John Shuster, Scott Baird and Coach Bob Fenson. Both teams exhibited their skill, their mastery of strategic play and the ability to precisely execute when the pressure was on. This combination of skill and determination helped the Men's team to bring home the Bronze Medal for the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the great achievement of all these fine athletes. The commitment to excellence, sportsmanship and honor that they displayed while representing the United States will long be a source of pride for all Minnesotans, especially those who call Bemidji, Minnesota their home.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. As ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, I support this bill because it provides uniform food safety standards and warning requirements, and it creates a single national system for food and food products regulated by the FDA. Establishing uniform standards increases efficiency and safety as we have seen in practice today with the USDA and the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Inspection Act, and other authorities that were referred to by the chairman in his remarks a short time ago. Consumers gain with this consistency and uniform regulations for packaged food all across the 50 States under this jurisdiction of the FDA. If a food product is safe in one State, it is safe in all States. With the world's safest food supply at the lowest cost to its consumers, every American benefits from this system of national food safety standards. H.R. 4167 builds on this record of success by extending the same approach to food safety standards used by USDA and other agencies; and, therefore, I believe this bill should be supported. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and to oppose any amendments that weaken or attempt to gut the commonsense approach of this legislation.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the ranking member of the Risk Management Subcommittee, who along with Chairman Moran provided outstanding work and leadership on bringing this legislation to the floor.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in support of the bill before us. I want to commend Chairman Goodlatte for this fine work, and I also want to thank the subcommittee chairman (Mr. Moran) and the ranking member (Mr. Etheridge), who have done an excellent job in helping us put this bill together. In addition, Mr. Graves, Mr. Barrow and Mr. Marshall, all members of the committee, have worked very hard on important issues related to energy markets. I think the bill before us makes important progress thanks to their efforts. Mr. Speaker, during hearings held in the Agriculture Committee, there was substantial discussion regarding the potential of the effects of the Zelener decision. In that case, the CFTC sought to use provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act to put an end to the deceptive sales practices being employed by one company in the marketing of retail foreign exchange contracts. The case was thrown out, however, because the defendant prevailed in court with his argument that the product he was offering was not technically a futures contract and, therefore, not the jurisdiction of the CFTC. The ruling was upheld in a Federal appeals court, and the Solicitor General declined to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Some of our witnesses who testified about the Zelener decision expressed concern that it will have far-reaching effects. Other witnesses were more concerned that a broad response to the decision would have harmful unintended consequences. The President's Working Group on Financial Markets advised the Agriculture Committee to adopt a relatively modest response, and that is what is included in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe the remedy included in this bill will restore the CFTC's ability to ensure that similar perpetrators of deceptive schemes involving foreign exchange trading can be policed effectively. However, because the scope of this fix is limited to foreign exchange contracts, we need to be prepared for the possibility that a similar problem will arise in other product areas. Because the future in this area is so uncertain, we are counting on the CFTC to monitor developments carefully to determine whether or not in fact criminals are using the Zelener reasoning to avoid detection and prosecution. In their letter to the Agriculture Committee, the President's Working Group did not explain clearly why they are so sure that the modest fix is sufficient to solve the problem. Hopefully, the Working Group's members will join us in monitoring future cases and will be open to developing policy changes quickly that may be necessary to protect our Nation's investors. Mr. Speaker, the futures industry is an important segment of our economy. Adequate regulation and investor protection must be balanced with the need to allow businesses to promote responsible innovations. Passage of the bill before us today will help us ensure that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission can continue to protect America's investors without excessively impeding progress. I urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), one of our more valuable members of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are moving this reauthorization before various authorities in the Grain Standards Act expire on September 30. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Etheridge, as well as Chairman Goodlatte for their work on moving this reauthorization. The legislation we are considering today would simply reauthorize the existing Grain Standards Act for 10 years. While I would prefer that the reauthorization be for 5 years to allow for reexamination of the state of the inspection service and industry at that time, I support the bill before us today. As we saw with the recent experiences in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Grain Inspection Service's Federal workforce is a dedicated group of individuals with many years of experience and a great deal of pride in the work that they do. The folks that work in the Port of New Orleans, for example, have continued to provide valuable public services even as the disaster affects their own families, homes, and neighborhoods. The quality of the grain produced on American farms is among the best in the world, and our export inspection system helps ensure that the integrity of those crops is maintained as it is exported to our foreign customers. I support the passage of this reauthorization, and I again want to thank my colleagues for their work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who has worked on this issue.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the commercialization and planting of crops improved through biotechnology. This year also marks the one-billionth acre of biotech enhanced crops planted on American soil. Since their introduction to American agriculture, biotech crops have provided many benefits to the American people, including less soil erosion, less fuel emissions and reduced need for chemical inputs. Crop biotechnology has also provided tremendous benefits to America's farmers by reducing the cost of production and increasing yields, resulting in increased net farm income by $1.9 billion. In my home State of Minnesota, biotech crops have had a significant impact on corn and soybean production. According to a USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service Report published in June of this year, 66 percent of all corn planted in Minnesota was of a biotech variety. The same report noted that 83 percent of all soybeans planted in Minnesota were of a biotech variety. In 2003, the most recent overall statistics for biotech crops in Minnesota, the planting of biotech crops led to an increase of 525 million pounds of farm commodity output. At the same time, Minnesota farmers reduced pesticide use by 6.5 million pounds and earned an additional $176 million in profits. There are several Minnesota companies in attendance today whose research has contributed to the successes of farm biotechnology. Newport Laboratories works with veterinarians to fight disease and protect livestock health though customized biotech treatments. CROPLAN Genetics, a subsidiary of the Land-O-Lakes company, focuses on individual farmers and meeting their specific genetic needs with customized seed. ANDX, Inc. develops tests which diagnose and predict livestock diseases. Together these companies represent the many achievements in the field of biotechnology which benefit farmers across the Nation. For the last decade, biotechnology has changed the face of American agriculture. New advances in biotechnology continue to improve the lives of American farmers, and will continue to shape agriculture into the future. I'm happy to participate in the Agriculture Biotechnology Exhibition, and I look forward to the continuing benefits and innovations of agriculture biotechnology.