[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13227-13229]
[From the U.S. 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 statue 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 left wing 
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, using a strict and science-based system. We are basing our 
review on

[[Page 13228]]

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

[[Page 13229]]

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 
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.

                          ____________________