[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13472-13473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      THE NEW ERA OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrock). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, next Thursday, June 12, the 
subcommittee I chair on research will hold a hearing on biotechnology, 
the potential and the safety. I am a farmer in Michigan, and this is 
the first year that I have used the so-called roundup ready soybeans to 
plant on my farm. I have held back, thinking that maybe the 
nongenetically modified soybean would bring a higher price or have 
expanded markets, especially in some of those areas of the world that 
are rejecting it.
  However, that has not been the case. Biotechnology is now one of the 
most promising sectors of the economy. It is revolutionizing medicine 
with at least 95 biotech drugs already approved in the U.S., and there 
are another 371 drugs on the table for acceptance that are being 
developed for medications that could help cure cancer, heart disease, 
diabetes, and many other conditions. Biotechnology will produce higher-
quality foods that can provide both nourishment and immunization to 
many of the billions of hungry people around the world.
  In our NSF bill that was signed into law last December 22, we put 
language in that bill for grants to work with scientists from African 
countries to help develop the kind of products that could best help 
their particular country. Unfortunately, biotechnology has come under 
attack from some in the European Union and elsewhere who hope to avoid 
competition in this area. The Speaker of the House, USAID 
administrator, and leading scientists will testify at our congressional 
hearing June 12 on the safety and potential of plant biotechnology.
  Back in the summer of 1999, the journal ``Nature'' published a study 
suggesting that pollen from genetically

[[Page 13473]]

modified corn could harm the monarch butterfly population, really sort 
of sparking a worldwide controversy. While follow-up studies have since 
proven that such pollen presents no danger to monarchs, the foundations 
of fear based on emotion had been set, and soon other nonscience-based 
allegations about plant biotechnology emerged.
  In response, my House Subcommittee on Research met with leading 
scientists across the country and followed with a series of hearings 
investigating the potential benefits and safety concerns associated 
with plant biotechnology. Our findings, compiled in a comprehensive 
report that we wrote that I entitled ``Seeds of Opportunity,'' showed 
that crops developed through biotech were just as safe as those crops 
produced with traditional crossbreeding. Three years since we released 
the report, its findings still hold true and are now backed by an even 
larger body of scientific evidence. Also, America's three-pronged 
safety review by USDA, FDA, and EPA for biotech products comes as close 
to guaranteeing safety as you can get. I think that is why the Speaker 
of the House, Dennis Hastert, and several of us in Congress joined with 
Bush administration officials last month on May 12 to announce that the 
United States would file a WTO challenge to the European Union's import 
ban on genetically modified crops.
  Enter Africa. President Bush rightly charged that the EU's ban is an 
unjust burden on the world's poorest countries. With approximately 180 
million undernourished people and perennial low yields and quality 
brought about by droughts, insects and other disasters, Africa stands 
to benefit tremendously from GM crops. Yet here is the European Union 
exploiting Africa's dependency on the EU as a trading partner to stall 
acceptance of GM crops. Let me give Members an example. Starving Zambia 
rejected 23,000 tons of emergency U.S. food aid because Europe implied 
that it could respond by rejecting future corn exports from that 
particular country. There is even some evidence that EU pressure is 
impeding even research into new crop varieties that could feed Africa, 
that could cure a blight problem in bananas.
  Our research subcommittee will be examining the barriers to plant 
biotechnology in Africa in more detail next week at the hearing and the 
Speaker of the House is going to be testifying about the challenge and 
about the safety as well as the administrator of AID and other 
scientists.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, sound science should drive what we do, 
not emotion.
  Sound science should drive trade and regulatory decisions associated 
with transgenic food crops, not protectionism masquerading behind a 
thin veil of unfounded fears. The U.S. challenge moves us one step 
closer to removing the unfair barriers that hurt American farmers and 
deny the people of Africa a wonderful tool for combating hunger.

                          ____________________