[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 78 (Friday, May 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7117-S7119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. RES. 154
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 154 regarding the
European Union action against agricultural biotechnology, a resolution
submitted earlier today by me and Senators Talent, Lincoln, Lugar, and
Baucus. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed
to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object to
the request made by my good friend from Missouri, that land from which
Old Crumb, that great hunting dog, came. I believe it is Warrensburg,
MO, where that statue stands today, the statute of Old Crumb, that
great hunting dog.
But I must on this occasion object. I do it at the behest of another
Senator. I assure the distinguished Senator that I bear no ill will
toward him, certainly. But, on this occasion, I have promised that I
would object, and I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand how this place works. We knew
there was to be an objection. But we have submitted a resolution which
will be referred to committee because it is a matter of great
importance. While apparently 99 Senators did not have an objection, we
will have an opportunity when this matter is reported out of the
appropriate committee to deal with what I think is a very serious
issue.
This resolution before us today expresses strong support for
President Bush's decision to stand up for our trade rights before the
World Trade Organization. The action taken by our President is right on
principle, right on law, right on science, and it is morally right.
Two years ago, the European Environment Commissioner, Margot
Wallstrom, told a news conference the following:
We have already waited too long to act. The moratorium is
illegal and not justified. The value of biotechnology is
poorly appreciated in Europe and there's a risk the
biotechnology industry will not develop.
In short, we could not have said it better. We appreciate the
Commissioner's courage to be so candid.
Since reason has not prevailed in Europe, it is time for our
overtaxed patience to give way to the need to exercise our rights
before the World Trade Organization. If the Europeans had been
satisfied to exist as a ``plant technology free zone'' without
aggressively attempting to influence other nations, this action would
not have become as imperative as it is.
Mr. President, this European ban on plant biotechnology is a lesson
about the serious harm that can come in the form of unintended
consequences. Too-clever politicians in Europe, coupled with the
hysterical anticommercial activists, decided they could whip their
public into a frenzy and shield the European Union producers from U.S.
competition by suggesting that the new technology is not safe.
Even perhaps more venal--if that is possible--certain leftwing
organizations decided they could raise fears and cause unfounded scares
in the public and raise money through solicitations to fund their own
salaries by spreading lies about the food that we in the United States
eat every day.
But now that the European Union politicians are listening to their
scientists and realize that the technology is safe, they say they
cannot accept it because their public is against it. In other words,
they now claim to be hostage to the misinformation they created and,
indeed, fostered.
Consequently, we now have a major trade infraction. Our farmers have
lost $300 million a year in corn exports. The European public doubts
the credibility of their science community. European investment in new
plant science is in sharp decline. Their farmers do not have access to
new technology. Most importantly, world-renowned scientists are leaving
the European Union.
They are coming to Missouri, where our leading scientists, such as
Dr. Roger Beachy and Dr. Peter Raven, are hiring them and providing
them a refuge where they can practice their science free from the
Luddite hysteria or ``Eurosclerosis'' from which they came.
But most tragically--most tragically--the countries in the developing
world have been frightened into refusing to feed their starving people
the food we have sent them--which is food we eat--because they fear the
hysterical European rejection is more serious than death by starvation.
We have sent food, humanitarian efforts, to aid and keep these people
alive. Unfortunately, their leaders have been frightened by Europeans
who say they will never import from them again.
Regrettably, I would say that Europe's fastest-growing exports are
hysteria and underappreciated plant scientists. We would like Europe to
join us in our efforts to help feed the hungry in the world, not scare
the world into needless, wanton starvation.
I do not believe this is where the Europeans wanted to be when they
started this nonsense but this is where it has predictably taken them.
This technology was developed, studied, tested, reviewed, approved,
planted on several hundred million acres over 7 years, rereviewed and
reapproved,
[[Page S7118]]
using a strict and science-based system. We are basing our review on
science and on experience--lots of experience.
All of us in America today are eating the food that has been improved
by genetic modification. We recognize that no technology will ever be
100-percent safe. We must regulate this and other technologies
aggressively and thoroughly and scientifically. But this has been the
most scrutinized new food technology of our age--or any age--and it has
been planted on several hundred million acres around the world for many
years. The naysayers still have not identified a single stomachache
coming from biotechnology, despite their desperate search.
Our findings are not unique in the world. The case we have taken
against the EU is joined by the Governments of Argentina, Canada,
Egypt, Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New
Zealand, Peru, and Uruguay.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences completed a report that
``emphasized it was not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the
market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.''
I can list those which agree with us: the World Health Organization,
France's Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the
French Academy of Medicine, the Royal Society of London, the Brazilian
Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian
National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and many
others.
Twenty Nobel laureates, including Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as ``the
father of the Green revolution,'' with whom I spoke earlier this week
on this subject, has come out in strong support. All of the major U.S.
scientific societies are behind this technology. Dr. Patrick Moore,
founding member of Greenpeace and a trained biologist, said directly:
I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs
and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and
forestry are both good examples where policy is being
influenced by arguments that have no basis in factor logic.
The scientific consensus on this matter is overwhelming. In this
country, farmers, scientists, regulators, courts, shareholders, elected
officials, editorial boards, and consumers have all ratified the
product and process and future of biotechnology in their own ways. For
all practical purposes, it is a settled issue, and remains so.
In my office last week I had a South African cotton farmer who said
that new technology in a seed has changed his life. He now has a
harvest. He produces profitably. He has a savings account. And now all
his neighbors are using that technology.
U.S. agriculture continues to be on the forefront of the application
of modern science. In 1940, it took one farmer to feed 19 people. Now
one farmer feeds 129 people. But tragically, 800 million children in
the world remain hungry. New applications of biotechnology in the U.S.
have increased crop yields by 4 billion pounds, saved growers $1.2
billion, and reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds in the year
2001 alone.
If wealthy citizens in Europe want to shop at trendy expensive food
boutiques, that is their right, but their government should not be
preventing the public from choosing their diet, and it most certainly
should not be discouraging the developing world from trying to eat well
to grow and live a better life.
I am very proud of the work President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick,
Administrator Natsios, Under Secretary Larson, Ambassador Hall, and
many others have done to preserve the viability of this new technology.
The EU has made agreements with us to abide by rules they are now
flagrantly ignoring. These promises should be kept.
I appreciate the cosponsors of this resolution, the support of farm
groups, including the National Corn Growers, Missouri Farm Bureau, and
Missouri Soybean Association.
The best arguments on behalf of this are contained in Wednesday's
article in the Wall Street Journal by U.S. trade ambassador, Robert
Zoellick. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2003]
United States v. European Union
(By Robert B. Zoellick)
The U.S.--joined by Argentina, Canada and Egypt, and
supported by nine other countries--last week asked the
European Union to lift its moratorium on approving
agricultural biotech products, in accordance with the rules
of the World Trade Organization.
The world stands on the threshold of an agricultural
revolution. The science of biotechnology can make crops more
resistant to disease, pests and drought. By boosting yields,
biotechnology can increase farmers productivity and lower the
cost of food for consumers. It can help the environment by
reducing pesticide use and preventing soil erosion. And new
crops offer the promise of something greater still: foods
fortified with nutrients that could help stem disease--
including saving the eyesight of over 500,000 children who go
blind each year because they lack Vitamin A. Where food is
scarce, or climates harsh, increased agricultural
productivity could spell the difference between life and
death, between health and disease for millions. Biotech rice,
for example, is twice as resistant to drought and saltwater,
while withstanding temperatures about 10 degrees lower than
other varieties.
For almost five years, the EU has violated its own rules
and procedures--and disregarded the advice of its scientific
committees and commissioners--by arresting action on
applications for biotech food products. This moratorium
violates the EU's basic WTO obligations to maintain a food
approval process that is based on ``sufficient scientific
evidence'' and that acts without ``undue delay.''
Some Europeans have asked why the U.S. and its 12 partners
would not wait longer. Yet the European commissioners working
to lift the moratorium are the hostages of their member
states. As Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom
concluded last October: ``I have stopped guessing when the
moratorium would be lifted--[S]ome member states are
opposed--and will have to move the goal posts.'' We stopped
guessing, too.
As we have waited patiently for European leaders to step
forward and to deploy reason and science, the EU moratorium
has sent a devastating signal to developing countries that
stand to benefit most from innovative agricultural
technologies. This dangerous effect of the EU's moratorium
became evident last fall, when some famine-stricken African
countries refused U.S. food aid because of fabricated fears--
stoked by irresponsible rhetoric--about food safety.
As a major importer of food, Europe's decisions ripple far
beyond its borders. Uganda refused to plant a disease-
resistant type of banana because of fears it would jeopardize
exports to Europe. Namibia will not buy South Africa's
biotech corn for cattle feed to avoid hurting its beef
exports to Europe. India, China and other countries in South
America and Africa have expressed the same trepidation.
``Thirty-four percent of the children [in Africa] are
malnourished,'' says Dr. Diran Makinde of the University of
Venda in South Africa. Yet Africans are told of biotech
crops: ``Don't touch them.''
For five years, the world has waited patiently, assured by
European officials that a change in policy is ``just around
the corner.'' But around every corner we have found a new
roadblock. First, we were asked to wait until new biotech
approval regulations were drafted. Then it was to wait for a
labeling scheme, then for rules on legal liability, and then
for new regulations on where biotech crops can and cannot be
planted.
While Europe has added barrier after barrier to fight
fictions, biotechnology has demonstrated benefit after
benefit based on facts. ``No till'' biotech farming has
reduced soil erosion by one billion tons a year. Over the
past eight years, biotech cotton and corn have reduced
pesticide use by 46 million pounds of active ingredients. The
Chinese Academy of Science estimates biotech could reduce
China's pesticide use by 80%.
Overwhelming scientific research shows that biotech foods
are safe and healthy--a conclusion that the EU's own
Directorate-General for Research reached two years ago. The
National Academies of Science and Medicine in France concur.
So do the scientific Academies of Brazil, China, India,
Mexico, the U.K. and the U.S. Dr. C.S. Prakash of Tuskegee
University presented me with a statement signed by more than
3,200 scientists world-wide, including 20 Nobel laureates,
supporting agricultural biotechnology.
Some claim that we are ``forcing'' biotech foods on
European consumers. Yet all we ask is for consumers to have
the right to make their own decisions, a right they are now
denied because the EU is blocking access to foods that EU
regulators and scientific associations acknowledge are safe.
The legal case for biotechnology is clear, the science
overwhelming, and the humanitarian call to action compelling.
We hope this debate will lead the EU to finally lift its
moratorium without imposing new barriers.
Mr. BOND. I join with many of my colleagues in commending the
President and his team as they go to Europe aggressively to press their
case before the G-8 meeting in France next week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
[[Page S7119]]
Bunning be added as a cosponsor of this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I spoke on this last night, and my friend
and colleague from Missouri has covered the ground well, but I wish to
say a couple things that I think are important to emphasize.
The first is, it is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone around
the world that there is no reason, other than market protection, not to
permit a biotech product into Europe. It is not bad for the
environment. It is good for the environment.
In 2001 alone, biotechnology reduced the application of pesticides by
46 million pounds in addition to reducing soil erosion and creating an
environment more hospitable to wildlife.
It would be good for the environment of Europe and the world to allow
a biotech product there. It would be good for them, frankly, to start
using it in raising their own product.
It is also increasingly obvious that there is no safety hazard.
Practically everybody in America has eaten biotech corn or product made
from biotech soybeans. There has not been a single case or suspicion of
anybody being hurt by it. And, of course, there would not be because
producers have been adjusting plant genetics for decades and decades
and decades. This is just a new way of doing a very old and a time-
honored thing that is very important to the production of the
agriculture and to the advancement of human welfare.
I congratulate the administration on filing this WTO action. It is,
if anything, overdue. I congratulate my friend and colleague for his
comments. I hope the Senate can get behind the resolution just as
quickly as possible and support the administration in this effort.
I know the support for biotech is bipartisan in this Chamber. I
believe very strongly that it is overwhelming. I know we have tried to
do this quickly this week, and maybe too quickly. Maybe we will not get
it done today but I hope we can get it done soon and the Senate can go
on record.
I close by saying, it is not just a question anymore of fairness and
fair trade and the truth prevailing--as important as all those issues
are. It is a question of hunger in the world. To me, the turning point
was when the European Union countries not only refused to take the
biotech product themselves, which I don't even think is defensible, but
then they began trying to convince African countries that are in danger
of famine to turn down shipments of safe, nutritious U.S. humanitarian
biotech food aid.
This is now a question of trying to get food to people who are
starving. That is too much, even for the European Union. I think it is
time we said it. That is the point of this WTO action. That is the
point of our resolution. That is the reason my colleague from Missouri
has spoken on this important issue late at the end of this week. That
is the reason I wanted to come down to the floor and join him in his
comments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before I begin, I should note my good
friend, the senior Senator from Missouri, is on the floor. He had to
put a unanimous consent request earlier, knowing that under the
procedures we follow, it would be objected to by the senior Senator
from West Virginia.
I will tell my friend from Missouri that in my 29 years here, I have
never heard an objection so eloquently stated as was stated by the
senior Senator from West Virginia. I think of the number of times we
all make these requests, and most of the time unanimous consent
requests are granted, as the Senator knows. For example, he recently
made one allowing the junior Senator to speak and for me to follow. I
can't help but think it would be nice if sometimes it wouldn't get so
rancorous around here, if we could hear more of the words of Senator
Byrd in this regard. He included a history, geography and literature
lesson, all in a simple ``I object.'' It makes life better.
I wish my friend from Missouri a good break, as I do my friend, the
distinguished Presiding Officer. He will soon, I am sure, be heading to
New Hampshire, as I will to Vermont.
____________________