[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2399-H2404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         REGIONAL PLANT GENOME AND GENE EXPRESSION RESEARCH ACT

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2051) to provide for the establishment of regional 
plant genome and gene expression research and development centers, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2051

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
     National Science Foundation;
       (2) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 101 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); and
       (3) the term ``nonprofit organization'' means a nonprofit 
     research institute or a nonprofit association with experience 
     and capability in plant biotechnology research as determined 
     by the Director.

     SEC. 2. MATCHING FUNDS.

       The Director may establish matching fund requirements for 
     grantees to receive grants under this Act.

     SEC. 3. PLANT GENOME AND GENE EXPRESSION RESEARCH CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--The Director shall award grants to 
     consortia of institutions of higher education or nonprofit 
     organizations (or both) to establish regional plant genome 
     and gene expression research centers. Grants shall be awarded 
     under this section on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis. 
     When making awards, the Director shall, to the extent 
     practicable, ensure that the program created by this section 
     examines as many different agricultural environments as 
     possible.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the centers established 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be to conduct research in 
     plant genomics and plant gene expression. A center's 
     activities may include--
       (1) basic plant genomics research and genomics 
     applications, including those related to cultivation of crops 
     in extreme environments and to cultivation of crops with 
     reduced reliance on fertilizer;
       (2) basic research that will contribute to the development 
     or use of innovative plant-derived products;
       (3) basic research on alternative uses for plants and plant 
     materials, including the use of plants as renewable feedstock 
     for alternative energy production and nonpetroleum-based 
     industrial chemicals and precursors; and
       (4) basic research and dissemination of information on the 
     ecological and other consequences of genetically engineered 
     plants.

     SEC. 4. PARTNERSHIPS FOR PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE 
                   DEVELOPING WORLD.

       (a) In General.--(1) The Director shall award grants to 
     institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, or 
     consortia of such entities to establish research partnerships 
     for supporting the development of plant biotechnology 
     targeted to the needs of the developing world. The Director, 
     by means of outreach, shall encourage inclusion of 
     Historically Black Colleges or Universities, Hispanic-serving 
     institutions, or tribal colleges or universities in consortia 
     that enter into such partnerships.
       (2) In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     section, an institution of higher education or eligible 
     nonprofit organization (or consortium thereof) shall enter 
     into a partnership with one or more research institutions in 
     one or more developing nations and may also include for-
     profit companies involved in plant biotechnology.
       (3) Grants under this section shall be awarded on a merit-
     reviewed competitive basis.
       (b) Purpose.--Grants awarded under this section shall be 
     used for support of research in plant biotechnology targeted 
     to the needs of the developing world. Such activities may 
     include--
       (1) basic genomic research on crops grown in the developing 
     world;
       (2) basic research in plant biotechnology that will advance 
     and expedite the development of improved cultivars, including 
     those that are pest-resistant, produce increased yield, 
     reduce the need for fertilizers, or increase tolerance to 
     stress;
       (3) basic research that could lead to the development of 
     technologies to produce pharmaceutical compounds such as 
     vaccines and medications in plants that can be grown in the 
     developing world; and
       (4) research on the impact of plant biotechnology on the 
     social, political, economic, and environmental conditions in 
     countries in the developing world.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Science Foundation $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     $13,500,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $13,500,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004 to carry out this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson) will each control 20 minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman from Texas claim time 
in opposition?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Texas oppose the 
motion?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio oppose the 
motion?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed, and I seek to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) controls the time as a true opponent of the motion.

[[Page H2400]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill now under 
consideration, H.R. 2051.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) control 10 minutes 
of the time in favor of the passage of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This legislation deals with a couple areas of research that the 
National Science Foundation is now involved in, and I would suggest 
that not only for the sake of this country but for the sake of the 
developing world that we move ahead with the kind of research in 
genetic modification that has the potential of not only reducing the 
price for farmers but that can help people. It will help people by 
giving a little additional priority to making sure that the products 
that are developed have that goal.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Science Subcommittee on 
Research, we held a number of hearings on plant genomics, and what I 
learned led me to issue a report on ``Plant Genomic Research to Improve 
Agriculture, Human Health and the Environment.''
  This legislation builds on the NSF's success in funding merit-based 
competitive research by establishing two genomic initiatives at NSF: 
First, the plant genome plant gene expression research centers; and, 
two, the suggestion and legislation by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson), the partnerships for plant biotechnology in the 
developing world. The bill authorizes $9 million for fiscal year 2002, 
and $13.5 million for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to carry out these 
activities.
  What are we going to do with our new technology to make sure that we 
help people in this country and the rest of the world? And that is what 
these bills are all about, to make sure we move in that direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2051, the 
Regional Plant Genome and Gene Research Expression Act. H.R. 2051 has 
been a collaborative effort between me and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Science, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I 
also thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, for their 
leadership in bringing this important piece of legislation to the 
floor.
  This legislation was developed last fall because I believe we are 
only just beginning to unlock the potential of agricultural 
biotechnology. We have witnessed some of the benefits genetically 
improved crops have brought to American farmers, and it is time that 
farmers around the world are also able to enjoy the benefits of 
agricultural biotechnology.
  H.R. 2051 establishes a competitive, merit-reviewed grant program 
under the National Science Foundation to award grants to eligible 
entities to conduct basic research on crops that can be grown in the 
developing world. The research supported by these grants will help 
scientists discover innovative solutions to some of the developing 
world's most intractable problems, such as hunger, malnutrition, and 
disease.
  Last September, the House Subcommittee on Research held a hearing on 
the two bills that became H.R. 2051 as considered here today. The 
witnesses testified on the importance of Federal funding for basic 
research on developing world crops and indicated that this legislation 
fills an important funding gap in our current research environment. The 
witnesses also were enthusiastic about the partnership aspect of this 
legislation because collaborative research projects between the U.S. 
and developing world scientists will help develop the scientific 
capacity of developing nations as well as expand partnership 
opportunities for U.S. scientists.
  The potential of basic research on developing world crops is 
enormous, and scientists have already produced some encouraging 
results. Many of us are familiar with a newly developed strain of 
golden rice that was developed by plant scientists to have increased 
Vitamin A and iron content. Golden rice was developed because Vitamin A 
deficiency causes more than 1 million childhood deaths each year and is 
the single most prevalent cause of blindness among children in 
developing countries. Golden rice is only the beginning of the 
potential benefits of biotechnology for the developing world. 
Biotechnology can help develop crop varieties that are resistant to 
insects, viruses, that can be grown in drought-stricken lands with only 
minimal amounts of water, that have improved nutritional content, and 
that vaccinate against life-threatening illnesses.
  Dr. Norman Borlaug, a distinguished professor at Texas A&M 
University, father of the Green Revolution, and recipient of the 1970 
Nobel Peace Prize, stated in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that 
``Africa desperately needs the simple, effective, high-yield farming 
systems that have made the First World's food supply safe and secure.'' 
The technology developed through agricultural biotechnology and 
encapsulated in a seed is such a system. Biotechnology will not solve 
all of the developing world's problems, but it does have an important 
role to play in increasing food security and food self-sufficiency in 
the developing world.
  Improving agriculture in the developing world often ranks low on the 
list of our Nation's priorities. Yet I can think of few things that are 
more important to our Nation's security and future prosperity than 
fostering stable, productive economies throughout the world. Such 
global stability will not take place as long as hunger, malnutrition, 
and disease ravage the majority of the world's population. Fortunately, 
we are at a time and a place where we can take positive steps to 
improve the lives of people around the world, and I believe H.R. 2051 
makes a small, but important, contribution to this struggle.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for 
working with me in a collaborative, bipartisan effort on this bill. I 
urge Members to vote in favor of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I call the House's attention to a document from the 
Southern African Seed-Initiative which states in part with regard to 
the restoration of sustainable agriculture in the future, ``We are 
appealing to the regional international community and to organization 
in disaster relief and development assistance to take precautions: 1, 
to prevent the importation of inappropriate seeds to the southern 
Africa region which can undermine agrobiodiversity and thus food 
security for years; and 2, to support efforts to reconstitute locally 
adapted planning material and quality seed material/varieties, like 
indigenous landraces or farmers' varieties appropriate to the various 
ecosystems'' this sheet goes on to claim: ``Food aid, combined with the 
importation of often poorly adapted seed varieties, can lower yields 
and keep them low for years.''
  This information from the Seed Initiative from Southern Africa is 
very instructive, and reflects most seriously on the matter at hand 
because the truth of the matter is that all of us in this House who are 
very concerned about reducing hunger in the world must be careful not 
to create a circumstance that in our desire to use technologies that 
seemingly could reduce hunger, that we inadvertently use technologies 
which are poorly adapted to seed varieties that can end up actually 
increasing hunger.

[[Page H2401]]

  Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 2051, the Regional Plant Genome and Gene 
Expression Research Act. The bill before us is well-intentioned, but I 
believe it is based on an erroneous assumption. The legislation assumes 
that unproven technologies will solve the very serious international 
problem of world hunger. Technologies like genetically engineered food 
may have a limited role, but economics and the politics of repressive 
political regimes remain the significant barrier to a consistent food 
supply in developing nations.
  The development of expensive genetically engineered foods may only 
exacerbate the situation. There are better alternatives. Agroecological 
interventions have had significantly more success in helping developing 
nations feed themselves with higher yields and improved environmental 
practices, all within reasonable costs for developing countries.
  These alternatives do not further enrich the consolidated 
agricultural industry, but they can provide the poorest of citizens of 
a nation the opportunity to survive on their own means. Next week I am 
introducing the Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2002, which 
promotes this type of research that can quickly and effectively save 
millions of lives. The legislation before us today promotes a 
technology which is incompatible with the problem.
  The cause of world hunger has more to do with inadequate food 
distribution than food production. The world today produces more food 
per inhabitant than ever before. Enough food is available now to 
provide 4.3 pounds for every person each day. That information from 
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy.
  The poor nutrition of millions is not due to a shortage in food, but 
rather to problems of distribution. Why was Ethiopia exporting food 
during its famine in the 1980s? In an economy that is becoming 
increasingly market driven, food is sold to the highest bidder. But at 
a more fundamental level, appalling land distribution policies favoring 
large landowners leave land idle preventing people from growing their 
own food. The landless poor are at the mercy of the cash economy to buy 
food.
  This legislation follows the biotechnology industry strategy by 
employing bait and switch. Almost all genetic alterations are done to 
make food production and processing easier and more profitable for the 
manufacturers. A minuscule amount of research is aimed at improved 
nutrition, although biotechnology companies heavily advertise this tiny 
amount of research. In general, their crops are being engineered to 
increase corporate profitability, not to alleviate world hunger.
  During the 5-year period 1996 to 2000, herbicide tolerance accounted 
for 74 percent of genetically engineered plants. Insect resistance for 
North American insects, not insects in developing countries, accounted 
for 19 percent of genetically engineered plants, and stacked genes for 
herbicide tolerance and insect resistance accounted for 7 percent, this 
according to the International Service for the Acquisition of 
Agribiotech Applications.
  When added up, that leaves no commercialized crops that provide any 
benefits for the poor and developing nations. I quote from a statement 
made to the United Nations by delegates from 24 African states in 1998: 
``We object strongly that the image of the poor and hungry from our 
countries is being used by giant, multinational corporations to push a 
technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor 
economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or 
gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is 
needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think that it will 
destroy the diversity, the local knowledge, and the sustainable 
agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia; and 
it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.''

                              {time}  1500

  So here again, the best intentions seemingly to help address and 
eradicate hunger in developing nations can in fact end up creating 
conditions that promote more hunger. So if African nations, according 
to their representatives, do not want it, then who does besides the 
biotechnology public relations consultants?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I agree with much of what the gentleman from Ohio says, because that 
is part of our concern in this bill. What it calls for is more 
research. More research is going to include not only what it can do for 
people but also to increase the safety of any resulting product.
  The gentleman mentioned that a lot of the private research so far in 
this area has been to simply increase profits. That is the kind of 
private research in genomics that have been directed at plant products 
that can be sold because they increase yield or they reduce the cost 
for the farmer. If we are going to have the kind of research that helps 
people, there is no doubt that Federal funding for genomic research is 
important, that research in areas possibly has no profit potential but 
that can help alleviate poverty, that can protect the environment, that 
can improve human health, and that can reduce our overdependence on 
petroleum products.
  Reducing our dependency on petrolium energy is one of the areas that 
I have been concerned about. We have the potential to enhance the 
nitrogen-fixing capability of agricultural plants. Right now nitrogen 
fertilizer uses up approximately 6 percent of the natural gas in this 
country. If we can enhance the legumes the nodules that are now in the 
clovers, in the soybeans, in the alfalfas, to fix that nitrogen in the 
soil much more effectively and efficiently and we have that potential, 
then we are going to reduce our dependence on energy.
  Let me say that the Wall Street Journal yesterday ran an editorial by 
Norman Borlaug, best known as the Father of the Green Revolution. His 
work in developing higher yielding varieties of rice and wheat is 
credited with saving perhaps 1 billion people in China and India from 
starvation in the 1970s. Borlaug is now devoted to bringing about 
similar advancements in Africa where starvation remains all too common. 
What is his solution? His solution is to develop high yield varieties 
of traditional African crops such as cowpeas, cassava and how can we 
get there in part through biotechnology which has already shown promise 
for producing plants that are more tolerant to drought or can grow in 
soils that are too base or too acid or too salty that they cannot grow 
those crops now.
  I would hope the gentleman would consider supporting this bill to 
give us the kind of research to not only ensure the safety that some 
are concerned about, that he is concerned about and that I am concerned 
about and that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) 
is concerned about, but to develop the kind of products that can help 
people, not simply reduce the price to farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his comments and would like to 
respond. I believe he misunderstands this bill. The thrust of this bill 
is one of basic research at universities. The bill seeks to address the 
deficiency in basic genomic research on crops that can be grown in the 
developing world.
  More importantly, the bill seeks to create strong partnerships with 
developing world institutions from the very beginning. In order to be 
eligible for funds under section 4 of this bill, research institutions 
are required to partner with their colleagues in developing countries. 
This partnership will not only help strengthen the scientific capacity 
of developing countries but will ensure that the basic research that is 
performed focuses on what developing countries perceive their own needs 
to be. Additionally, the bill allows for research on the impact of 
plant biotechnology on the social, political and environmental 
conditions in countries in the developing world. This provision will 
allow researchers to investigate many of the claims that my colleague 
from Ohio raises.
  This bill does not force farmers in developing countries to adopt 
fancy technologies. It does not force the importation of genetically 
altered foods outside the country. On the contrary, it seeks to 
encourage the adoption of the

[[Page H2402]]

very simple technology of a better seed that was developed in 
conjunction with scientists from the developing world.
  All of us here recognize that world hunger is an enormously complex 
problem with no simple solution. This bill does not pretend to hold the 
answer. What this bill does is provide the means for scientists in the 
United States and in developing countries to work together to 
contribute to the much larger solution to the very serious problem of 
hunger, malnutrition and disease in the developing world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. I want to thank 
the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Texas for their 
commitment to trying to deal with this problem of world hunger. We have 
differences of opinion about how we can deal with it effectively.
  I would suggest that the research which is called for in part of this 
bill, Mr. Speaker, has already been done. As a matter of fact, in the 
AgBioForum, volume 2, number 3 and 4, summer and fall of 1999, pages 
155 to 162, an article by Miguel Altieri and Peter Rosset, thoroughly 
researched article, I might add, that claims over 38 academic sources 
for their conclusions, states the following in the abstract. It says:
  ``Advocates of biotechnology affirm that the application of genetic 
engineering to develop transgenic crops will increase world 
agricultural productivity, enhance food security, and move agriculture 
away from a dependence on chemical inputs helping to reduce 
environmental problems. This paper challenges such assertions by first 
demystifying the Malthusian view that hunger is due to a gap between 
food production and human population growth. Second, we expose the fact 
that current bioengineered crops are not designed to increase yields or 
for poor small farmers, so that they may not benefit from them. In 
addition, transgenic crops pose serious environmental risks, 
continuously underplayed by the biotechnology industry. Finally, it is 
concluded that there are many other agro-ecological alternatives that 
can solve the agricultural problems that biotechnology aims at solving, 
but in a much more socially equitable manner and in a more 
environmentally harmonious way.''
  In this article, which is entitled Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will 
Not Ensure Food Security, Protect the Environment and Reduce Poverty in 
the Developing World, Altieri and Rosset point out, number one, there 
is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country 
and its population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like 
Bangladesh or Haiti, there is a sparsely populated and hungry nation 
like Brazil and Indonesia.
  The second point they make, number two, most innovations in 
agricultural biotechnology have been profit-driven rather than need-
driven. The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to 
make Third World agriculture more productive, but rather to generate 
profits.
  Number three, the integration of the seed and chemical industries 
appears destined to accelerate increases in per acre expenditures for 
seeds plus chemicals, delivering significantly lower returns to 
growers.
  Number four, recent experimental trials have shown that genetically 
engineered seeds do not increase the yield of crops. A recent study by 
the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service 
shows that in 1998 yields were not significantly different in 
engineered versus nonengineered crops in 12 of 18 crop/region 
combinations.
  Number five, many scientists claim that the ingestion of genetically 
engineered food is harmless. Recent evidence, however, shows that there 
are potential risks of eating such foods as the new proteins produced 
in such foods could, one, act themselves as allergens or toxins; two, 
alter the metabolism of the food producing plant or animal, causing it 
to produce new allergens or toxins; or, three, reduce its nutritional 
quality or value.
  In this article, Ten Reasons Why Biotechnology Will Not Ensure Food 
Security, Protect the Environment and Reduce Poverty in the Developing 
World, the authors as their sixth point indicate transgenic plants 
which produce their own insecticides closely follow the pesticide 
paradigm, which is itself rapidly failing due to pest resistance to 
insecticides.
  Number seven, the global fight for market share is leading companies 
to massively deploy transgenic crops around the world, more than 30 
million hectares in 1998, without proper advance testing of short- or 
long-term impacts on human health and ecosystems.
  The next point that the authors make, number eight, there are many 
unanswered ecological questions regarding the impact of transgenic 
crops.
  Number nine, as the private sector has exerted more and more 
dominance in advancing new biotechnologies, the public sector has had 
to invest a growing share of its scarce resources in enhancing 
biotechnological capacities in public institutions.
  And, number 10, much of the needed food can be produced by small 
farmers located throughout the world using agro-ecological 
technologies. In fact, new world development approaches and low input 
technologies spearheaded by farmers and nongovernmental organizations 
around the world are already making a significant contribution to food 
security at the household, national and regional levels in Africa, Asia 
and Latin America.
  So again, Mr. Speaker, there already is significant research which 
points out concerns that need to be regarded before such legislation is 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from Texas and I, agree 
on a lot of these issues. The plant genome and gene expression centers 
will take plant biotechnology research into the next phase, beyond 
simply mapping and sequencing genes and toward a better understanding 
of gene expression.
  We have got the Aradopsis plant. We have cataloged those genes. We 
have determined the folding of several of those genes to learn more 
about what particular genes do. But there is a tremendous void in the 
information that we need to make sure the new plants are safe.
  Let us not argue against having more research. Let us not argue 
against maybe having government do a little bit of this research 
instead of leaving it to the private sector that are forced to have 
some kind of financial rewards for what they do. The centers are going 
to expand on NSF's current activities in gene research by providing 
central locations for multidisciplinary interactive approaches to plant 
biotech research. This will allow researchers to develop the kind of 
research to allow development of safe and beneficial plant varieties 
and plant-derived applications.

                              {time}  1515

  Specifically in this bill, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), the centers will conduct research in plant genomics 
related to the development of the kind of information that can lead to 
new varieties of enhanced crops, including those grown in 
nontraditional environments and those grown with reduced reliance on 
chemical fertilizers. These may include research into enhancing the 
nitrogen-fixing ability of legumes, that I earlier mentioned. The 
primary input, of course, of nitrogen is natural gas, so we can make 
ourselves a little more energy dependent while we increase the safety 
of the environment.
  The centers are also going to expand on current biotechnology efforts 
that have primarily been focused on improving the production and the 
cost and the quantity. And exactly like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) says, we are going to move away from that to the kind of 
research that is going to give us better information.
  I believe we are on the threshold of a new era in food production. 
Biotechnology will be especially important to poor subsistence farmers 
across the globe who struggle against the odds to bring in a good crop 
each year.
  To address this problem, H.R. 2051 authorizes a program creating 
plant biotechnology partnerships for the developing world. This program 
is based on H.R. 2912, introduced by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson). The plant biotechnology

[[Page H2403]]

partnerships will provide the fundamental research needed to build on 
the current plant biotechnology base to address specific agricultural 
problems in the developing world.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been stated over and over here that the interest 
here is in just research. However, we cannot separate the kind of 
research that will be done here from the logic that is driving 
biotechnology, because this bill states that for-profit companies can 
be involved in this research.
  Now, I agree with my friend from Michigan that we do not want to just 
leave it to for-profit companies, but it is in the bill. So I would 
just say that if we do not want for-profit companies involved, I would 
certainly be willing to entertain a unanimous consent request to strike 
that provision from this bill.
  In addition to that, the total of this bill is $36 million.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the language in the bill was not 
for-profit companies, it is for nonprofit organizations to be involved, 
so the nonprofits that are interested in something beside profit.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, may I ask the 
gentleman to make sure that he and I have the same copies of these 
bills, because often there are reprints and newer iterations. I have 
here under section 4: ``Partnerships for Plant Biotechnology in the 
Developing World,'' under number (2), which is line 8. I am going to 
read it to the gentleman: ``In order to be eligible to receive a grant 
under this section, an institution of higher education or eligible 
nonprofit organization (or consortium thereof) shall enter into a 
partnership with one or more developing nations and may also include 
for-profit companies involved in plant biotechnology.''
  I will ask the gentleman again, I would certainly entertain the 
gentleman's willingness to strike that language there so that we can 
certainly keep the for-profit companies out of this, because, Mr. 
Speaker, the for-profit companies had a $50 million advertising 
campaign to try to promote biotechnology, glossing over all the 
concerns that scientists around the world have, and they get $36 
million out of this bill if left to the language of this bill. They 
could get if that much.
  I would be happy to have my good friend respond.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentleman will yield further, this is 
part of the language of the bill of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson) originally. It does not give these companies the 
grant. They still go to the universities to make the decision of 
whether there is going to be any private involvement. That is one thing 
we have lacked as we searched for money, is trying to get more money 
in. But certainly they should not be allowed to dictate the kind of 
research to be done. I certainly appreciate that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
language.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would announce that 
the proponent of the motion is the only member that the Chair would 
recognize to ask unanimous consent to modify the motion.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one more minute.
  Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as my unanimous consent request was objected 
to, it is very clear that there are Members of this House, certainly 
not the gentleman from Michigan, but there are members of this House 
who are looking to give the biotech firms a handout under the guise of 
helping to feed the poor.
  Most genetically engineered food products and almost all research 
funding for the development of genetically engineered food target 
developing nation agriculture and consumers. Developing countries 
cannot afford this technology and therefore are vastly ignored.
  If the biotechnology industry believes they could help mitigate 
hunger concerns, domestic or foreign, then requiring biotechnology 
companies to make available the necessary resources for this purpose is 
appropriate.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my late father was a plant 
geneticist. He spent his entire career developing cotton plants and 
cotton seeds that could be used as food. I wish we would have had this 
research enabled when he was alive so he could have participated 
through grants at Texas A&M or the University of Texas to forward this 
very worthwhile research endeavor.
  Mr. Speaker, I very strongly support the gentlewoman from Texas and 
the gentleman from Michigan in their noble endeavor.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Ohio just gave all the reasons why this bill 
should pass. This is a bill on research where it can establish 
partnerships. The grants can only go to universities and nonprofits. 
Profit businesses can join the partnership, the consortium, but no 
money flows in that direction. The paper the gentleman read prior to 
that last statement is 3 years old. With research, that changes.
  This bill only speaks to research and who can be a part of the 
partnership, of the consortium. It is not public dollars flowing to 
profit organizations. It is what we will hear more of in the future, 
public-private-type partnerships. No public dollar flows to a profit 
organization. The dollars go to the universities, and that is where the 
research takes place; and it includes persons from the developing 
countries to be a part of the research.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage of this legislation. It is good 
legislation intended to do a good job.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, my legislation which I will be bringing to this House 
hopefully sometime soon, called the Real Solutions to World Hunger Act 
of 2002, offers new initiatives and protections to help developing 
nations resolve their hunger concerns.
  First, to protect developing nations, genetically engineered exports 
are restricted to those already approved in the U.S. and approved by 
the importing nation.
  Second, creation of an international research fund for sustainable 
agricultural research.
  Third, U.S. prohibition on any intervention in a developing nation's 
effort to mandatorily license a genetically engineered crop.
  Fourth, establishing the Sustainable Agriculture Trust Fund with a 
small tax on a biotechnology company's profits. This trust fund will 
fund the activities in this bill.
  To understand how this bill before us, the one we are going to be 
voting on today, will fail to help anyone except for the biotechnology 
companies, I think we should examine our own Nation, our own farming 
practices and our domestic hunger challenges.
  The United States of America, the wealthiest Nation in the world, 
grows substantial amounts of genetically engineered foods. Our farmers 
plant approximately 100 million acres a year in genetically engineered 
crops. However, in this great wealthy Nation of ours, plenty of 
families go hungry every day. Approximately 4 million low-income 
children under the age of 12 experience hunger each year, and an 
additional 9.6 million children are at risk of hunger.
  The proponents of this legislation before us believe that genetically 
engineered foods will solve world hunger. But I question this rationale 
when we have so much hunger in our own Nation. This technology has not 
helped a single hungry family in our Nation. These hungry families need 
a better economy, better paying jobs, access to child care, and a 
decent education to solve the economic trap that leads to hunger.
  It is clear that hunger is something that we must eradicate, but 
promoting false solutions to provide great public relations for a 
troubled industry does a great disservice to those who need our help 
the most. We all want to help resolve the hunger crisis in other 
nations, but only the legislation I will introduce soon will begin to 
deal with the real problems of world hunger.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would announce that each Member 
has 1 minute remaining, with the

[[Page H2404]]

gentleman from Michigan having the right to close.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, one more time let me say that the gentleman from Ohio 
has made the case for this bill. This bill speaks to research 
partnerships, including developing-nation participation. There is 
nothing in this bill that requires any kind of deportation to these 
developing nations. It provides a way by which they can be part of 
research that will provide them foods that will probably help with 
immunizations, extra vitamins, but only after the research is done with 
the involvement of scientists from the developing countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the passage of the bill. I think that the 
opponent has misunderstood the bill.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the agriculture and biotechnology 
industries are driving the research; and as such, they have ignored a 
tremendous amount of work that has been done by independent scientists 
that challenges the rationale of the industry itself.
  There are serious issues that need to be addressed, that relate to 
food security as a fundamental human right. The philosopher and human 
rights activist of India, Vandana Shiva, has said that globalization of 
agriculture is violating all components of food-related human rights. 
She says that everywhere across the world, less food is being produced 
and less diverse food is being grown and less is reaching the poor and 
hungry. She quotes Senator McGovern as stating: ``Food security in 
private hands is no food security at all,'' because corporations are in 
the business of making money, not feeding people.
  Vandana Shiva goes on to say, ``The centralized and chemical-
intensive production and distribution system, linked with the green 
revolution model, proved itself to be undemocratic, wasteful and non-
sustainable. The imperative now is to shift to a democratic food system 
based on sustainable production, conservation and equitable access to 
resources and food security for all.''
  I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this bill, which authorizes 
certain research, if it is in any way connected, as this bill is, with 
the ag-biotech industry, there is no possibility that the human rights 
of people around the world are in any way going to be regarded.
  Please defeat the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the tremendous potential of plant genomics is limited 
only by the creativity of the scientists and this body and Washington 
allowing them to do the research. This bill will help create the next 
generation of plants that will provide consumer benefits, for example, 
plants that can be engineered to produce compounds, such as enzymes 
used for food processing; food that provides vaccines and antibodies; 
compounds used to produce biodegradable plastics; renewable energy 
production.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and 
the ranking majority member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for 
all of their support in bringing this bill to the floor; and of course, 
I wish to say a special thanks to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Research, 
for all of her input and help. I think together we have crafted a good 
bill that will make good programs even better.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2051, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize the National Science Foundation to establish regional centers 
for the purpose of plant genome and gene expression research and 
development and international research partnerships for the advancement 
of plant biotechnology in the developing world.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________