[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I want to take a few minutes to 
express some of the perspectives of American agriculture on the 
Convention on Biological Diversity.
  The importance of biological diversity to the American farmer has 
been recognized and utilized for centuries. More than 99 percent of the 
crops planted today in the United States either originated on foreign 
soil or have been improved by foreign genetic resources.
  Likewise, the future of the American farmer depends on the continued 
use to genetic materials. Foreign germplasm helps farmers, ranchers and 
foresters develop plant and animal varieties that are not only more 
resistant to pests, disease and environmental stress but also more 
productive with increased yields and shorter growing times.
  The Convention on Biological Diversity is designed to serve these 
interests through two goals. One goal is to ensure that foreign 
resources exist (conservation) and the other is to ensure that the 
United States can use them (access). The Convention is drafted with 
specific interests of our $67 billion agriculture industry in mind.
  Not surprisingly, a number of agriculture groups recognized the 
importance of this treaty and wrote to my colleagues urging 
ratification. The American Corn Growers Association, Archer Daniels 
Midland, American Seed Trade Association, American Seed Research 
Foundation, National Association of Commercial Plant Breeders, American 
Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, the 
National Cooperative Business Association, and the United Fresh Fruit 
and Vegetable Association and some of the groups that expressed an 
interest in considering the treaty.
  Nevertheless, it is clear that other issues have sidelined the 
interests of agriculture. One of the reasons the Senate is not 
considering this treaty in time for the first Conference of Parties in 
November is an acute fear that this treaty will impose environmental 
standards on the United States. While I understand the root of these 
concerns and want to find adequate responses to these concerns, some of 
the fears just went too far. I believe John Doggett of the Farm Bureau 
summed up the net result of the careless politicking on this issue: 
Unfortunately, what we've seen is that certain groups created a crisis 
where one doesn't exist.
  I thank the agriculture groups that took an active interest in this 
issue to meet their own interests as well as the interests of the 
Nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the 
Administration to provide leadership where fear has overstepped reality 
and to bring resolution to the remaining concerns in the next Congress. 
I ask that a recent article from the Chicago Tribune be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 30, 1994]

                    Odd Trio Could Kill Nature Pact

                           (By Jon Margolis)

       It was negotiated by Republicans and signed by a Democrat.
       Its language was non-binding and its subject matter--the 
     beauty of nature, the web of life and the love of learning--
     hardly seemed controversial. Environmental groups and big 
     corporations all thought it was great.
       So even in today's contentious political setting, few 
     expected much trouble for the Convention on Biological 
     Diversity, more commonly known as the biodiversity treaty.
       But that was before it ran into a bizarre political trio: 
     the internal dynamics of the Republican Party, the anti-
     environmental ``Wise Use'' movement and political extremist 
     Lyndon LaRouche.
       Arising with unexpected fury, this opposition has stalled 
     Senate ratification of the treaty and imperils it in the 
     remaining days of the 103rd Congress.
       Although there is little doubt the treaty would be approved 
     if it got to the Senate floor, the opposition of some 
     Republicans could keep it from getting there. Senate Minority 
     Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and 34 of his fellow Republicans 
     have expressed ``a number of concerns'' about the treaty in a 
     letter to Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine).
       According to government officials and others involved in 
     the ratification effort, Republican doubts about the treaty 
     grew because of opposition from mainstream agricultural 
     organizations.
       These organizations, including the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation, had some substantive questions about elements of 
     the treaty. But they were also being pressured from the rank 
     and file, which had been bombarded with anti-treaty 
     information--much of it demonstrably incorrect--from ``wise 
     use'' groups, which get most of their money from mining, 
     logging and other resource-using companies.
       ``Unfortunately, what we've seen is that certain groups 
     tried to create a crisis where one doesn't exist,'' said John 
     Doggett, the Farm Bureau's director of governmental 
     relations. Doggett remains unhappy about some elements of the 
     treaty, but he said his organization is no longer opposing 
     ratification.
       But it was opposing the treaty early in August, which is 
     when the serious opposition first came to the attention of 
     the government officials responsible for the treaty. ``I was 
     surprised,'' said a State Department official. ``It really 
     had not shown up on my radar screen.''
       In an effort to discover the reasons for the opposition, 
     government officials met with representatives of agriculture 
     groups Aug. 5 at the Washington offices of the Farm Bureau.
       According to two government officials, one participant held 
     up and read part of an article that had been distributed by 
     the American Sheep Industry Association.
       The article claims that the treaty, which has been ratified 
     by 78 nations, was written by ``extremists'' who believe that 
     farming, jogging, fishing and mining violate the concept of 
     ``sustainable use'' and who want to impose the ``religious 
     philosophy'' of ``biocentrism,'' defined as ``the view that 
     all species have equal rights.'' It also contends that the 
     treaty establishes a ``supranational body'' that will 
     override national sovereignty.
       In fact, the treaty, which states that ``states have 
     sovereign rights over their own biological resources,'' was 
     approved by negotiators appointed by President George Bush. 
     Pressured by some in his own party, Bush did refuse to sign 
     the treaty, but the U.S. scientists and diplomats who 
     negotiated it have continued to support it. It was signed 
     last year by President Clinton.
       Although the article was not signed, Tom McDonnell of the 
     sheep industry group confirmed that it was written by Rogelio 
     (sometimes called Roger) Maduro. Maduro is an associate of 
     LaRouche, the conspiracy theorist who was released in January 
     from federal prison, where he was serving a sentence for 
     fraud and conspiracy.
       Maduro is associate editor of 21st Century, one of 
     LaRouche's magazines, and he writes for another, Executive 
     Intelligence Review. A version of his attack on the 
     biodiversity treaty appears in the Sept. 2 edition of that 
     journal.
       McDonnell said that when he distributed the article, which 
     he intended only for other members of his organization, he 
     did not know that Maduro was associated with LaRouche. He 
     also said the Sheep Industry Association is not taking any 
     position on ratification of the treaty.
       But he did defend the substance of Maduro's work. ``What I 
     have found is that his work very closely follows what is in 
     the Global Biodiversity Assessment.'' According to McDonnell, 
     the Global Biodversity Assessment is the UN document which is 
     ``the model for the treaty.''
       There is no such document, said a member of the staff of 
     the UN Environmental Program. ``We have a biodiversity treaty 
     and a secretariate,'' she said.
       The Global Biodiversity Assessment is a process, just 
     beginning, in which scientists from all over the world will 
     monitor the world's biological diversity.
       Neither the Farm Bureau's Doggett nor the other 
     participants in the Aug. 5 meeting said that Maduro's article 
     was the only cause, or even the main cause, of opposition to 
     the treaty. ``It was non-trivial,'' said one participant, 
     ``but I'm not sure that it was pivotal. One of the guys from 
     the cattlemen's association held it up to explain the kind of 
     response they were getting from their people.''
       According to this participant, the Washington lobbyists 
     knew that the article was irrational ``but even if they 
     didn't think these objections had any substance, how far 
     ahead of their own constituents could they get.''
       One government scientist familiar with the situation said 
     that farmers and ranchers, especially in the West, are a 
     receptive audience for conspiracy theories.
       ``They're all bent out of shape about the Endangered 
     Species Act, property rights and environmental regulations,'' 
     he said. ``Some of their objections to have legitimate roots, 
     but it makes them receptive to these statements that are 
     paranoid and irrational.''
       One of the objections of the treaty, for instance, is that 
     it defines cattle and sheep as ``alien species'' in the 
     natural ecosystem. This might seem credible because in 
     academic zoology livestock are so defined. ``But not in 
     law,'' said the government scientist. ``They are domesticated 
     species,'' and are so labeled in Article 2 of the treaty.
       Although some leaders of the ``wise use'' movement have 
     been associated with Rev. Sun Myung Moon and other 
     extremists, they have so far steered clear of LaRouche. But 
     Maduro attended a meeting of the Wise Use Leadership 
     Conference in July.
       This could pose a problem for Republicans, such as Dole who 
     have grown increasingly friendly toward ``wise use'' 
     positions and leaders in the last few years. Although ``wise 
     use'' organizations are considered to be politically powerful 
     only in New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah, they have been quietly 
     gaining strength in GOP circles as Republican leaders 
     jockeying for the presidential nomination move to the right 
     to get the approval of conservative political activists.

                          ____________________