[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             SENATE INACTION THREATENS BIODIVERSITY TREATY

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the recent pluses that has 
taken place for the State of Illinois was when Howard Buffett moved 
from Nebraska to Illinois. He is now serving as vice president and 
assistant to the chairman for the Archer Daniels Midland Co. of 
Decatur, IL.
  Recently, Howard Buffett had an op-ed piece in the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that merits wider distribution.
  Real candidly, until I read his commentary about the need for follow-
through on the Rio Earth summit, I was not aware of what is taking 
place and about the lack of U.S. participation in the follow-through on 
the Rio Earth summit.
  I do recall that at the Rio Earth summit, among the people who were 
there were Senators Albert Gore and John Kerry, both of whom provided 
leadership.
  I know that both these Government leaders continue their interest in 
this issue, but both in the administration and in Congress, we should 
make sure we follow through.
  I ask to insert Howard Buffett's observations into the Record at this 
point.
  The article follows:

           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 31, 1994]

             Senate Inaction Threatens Biodiversity Treaty

                         (By Howard G. Buffett)

       A powerful, far-reaching agricultural issue was overlooked 
     by the U.S. Senate, an issue that affects all humankind--the 
     conservation and sustainable use of the world's animals, 
     plants and ecosystems. The world is getting smaller and needs 
     a global effort to preserve its biological diversity; 
     unfortunately, due to inaction, the United States will not 
     participate fully in this effort.
       It has been two years since the Convention on Biodiversity 
     was unveiled at the Rio Earth Summit. This November, a 
     conference of the signing parties will convene to finalize 
     the rules of procedure and debate biosafety protocol. 
     However, the United States will be a silent bystander because 
     the Senate recessed without ratifying the treaty by its Aug. 
     30 deadline. Knowing the impact of biodiversity on medicine, 
     biotechnology, agriculture and pharmaceuticals, it is 
     incomprehensible that the United States has relinquished its 
     negotiating position.
       Decisions affecting rules of procedure and biosafety 
     protocol will be made without our input or influence. The 
     Senate may have left Washington without acting on this 
     important issue, but make no mistake about it--the rest of 
     the world will not stand still because we failed to act. This 
     conference will move forward, and our decision not to be at 
     the table reflects poorly on our commitment to future 
     generations.
       Every year, the U.S. government spends billions of dollars 
     to idle fertile cropland in an effort to support prices. At 
     the same time, countless developing nations subsidize 
     intensive production on fragile soils. The resources 
     necessary to produce food for the world's nearly 6 billion 
     people are literally eroding daily, even in countries with 
     strong conservation traditions.
       We live in a world where fewer than 20 plant species 
     produce 90 percent of the food supply, and we live in a 
     country where more than 99 percent of commercial crop acres 
     are planted with plant species introduced from foreign 
     countries. We are dependent on our ability to constantly 
     adapt varieties of plants and animals to overcome disease and 
     enhance yields necessary to fee our rapidly expanding 
     population. As a country, we rely on the world's supply of 
     diverse plant and animal genetic material. World 
     interdependence has never been more evident than in the 
     struggle to produce food.
       Given our country's position among world producers, does 
     U.S. agriculture have anything to fear at the Convention on 
     Biological Diversity? I think the answer is clearly no. Under 
     the convention, we maintain sovereign control over our 
     natural resources and are not subject to binding dispute 
     resolution procedures. The convention provides a framework 
     for developing stores of strategic genetic resources here and 
     abroad.
       The foreign germ plasma that boosted the soybean from a 
     green manure crop 50 years ago to one of the nation's leading 
     cash crops today is just one example of material that will 
     find greater protection and development. Hybrid vigor in both 
     plants and animals will be enhanced through increased 
     cooperation under this agreement.
       Our position as the world leader in biotechnology requires 
     that we be in a position to educate the rest of the world 
     about the safety of new products and the economic benefits of 
     improved varieties. We cannot influence other nations on 
     these issues if we remain isolated and refuse to embrace this 
     attempt to generate additional understanding.
       The greatest benefit to U.S. agriculture, however, might 
     just as well accrue in the area of soil and water 
     conservation. The convention will not force any constraining 
     new conservation regulations on U.S. farmers. U.S. producers 
     have for years been out front on voluntary adoption of 
     conservation practices. Witness the extensive use of no-till 
     farming and the reduction of nitrogen levels in row crop 
     systems. The benefits will come as developing nations reduce 
     unsound farming practices and reliance on monoculture.
       If the world's food supply is to keep pace with population 
     growth, the emphasis must shift to producing more on 
     fertile, well-managed soils and less on fragile areas. The 
     United States stands to gain significantly under such a 
     shift. Any move to transfer the billions being paid to 
     idle our most fertile acres into more productive ventures 
     will not only add to the viability of agriculture but 
     boost the U.S. economy as well.
       The economy will not be the only area affected. The 
     consumer, when looking at availability of products, quality 
     of products, maintaining reasonable price levels and having 
     access to more nutritious varieties, will also be effected. 
     Whether you observe from a global perspective and are 
     concerned with general food security or whether you localize 
     the impact, the conclusion is the same: Biodiversity is 
     critical to our future.
       Examples can vary greatly. When you walk into a store, one 
     out of four drug-related items that you pick off the shelf is 
     derived from a living organism, a product of biodiversity.
       We don't always think about biodiversity when eating french 
     fries, but the connection is very real. At least 13 species 
     of potatoes have been used in developing the varieties 
     currently grown in the United States. And the next time you 
     grab a handful of peanuts, remember that this popular food is 
     largely dependent upon germ plasm from abroad.
       In the 1970s, U.S. farmers were devastated by a severe 
     disease epidemic referred to as southern leaf blight fungus. 
     The salvation of our corn crop was found in diverse varieties 
     resistant to the disease. It is the closet we have come to 
     breakfast without cornflakes.
       Today, the U.S. wheat crop is under siege from a foreign 
     insect known as the Russian wheat aphid. Our only sources of 
     resistance is this pest originated from countries of 
     southwestern Asia and Eastern Europe.
       Soybeans, one of the most important agricultural products 
     and exports from the United States, could tremendously 
     benefit from a stronger, disease-resistant variety. Other 
     industries--from walnuts to grapes--depend heavily on the 
     contribution made from biodiversity. The products affected 
     cover every shelf in a grocery store. The consumer should 
     look to the Senate to provide this biological diversity 
     insurance policy.
       It is quite clear that U.S. participation in the Convention 
     on Biological Diversity offers no realistic threat to 
     American agriculture. The real fear should come from a lack 
     of cooperation among the world's food-producing nations as we 
     enter the 21st century.

                          ____________________