[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14266-14276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE SUPPORTING UNITED STATES IN ITS EFFORTS 
 IN WTO TO END EUROPEAN UNION'S TRADE PRACTICES REGARDING BIOTECHNOLOGY

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 252) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives supporting the United States in its efforts within the 
World Trade Organization (WTO) to end the European Union's 
protectionist and discriminatory trade practices of the past five years 
regarding agricultural biotechnology, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 252

       Whereas agriculture biotechnology has been subject to the 
     strictest testing, based on sound science, by the United 
     States Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug 
     Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency prior 
     to commercialization or human consumption;
       Whereas Americans have been consuming genetically-modified 
     corn and soybean products, which are subject to a rigorous 
     Federal review process, for years with no documentation of 
     any adverse health consequences;
       Whereas, according to recent studies, biotechnology has 
     made substantial contributions to the protection of the 
     environment by reducing the application of pesticides, 
     reducing soil erosion and creating an environment more 
     hospitable to wildlife;
       Whereas agriculture biotechnology holds tremendous promise 
     for helping solve food security and human health crises in 
     the developing world;
       Whereas there is objective and experience-based agreement 
     in the scientific community, including the National Academies 
     of Science, the American Medical Association, the Royal 
     Society of the United Kingdom, the French Academy of 
     Medicine, the French Academy of Sciences, the joint report of 
     the national science academies of the United Kingdom, the 
     United States, Brazil, China, India and Mexico, twenty Nobel 
     Prize winners, leading plant science and biology 
     organizations in the United States and thousands of 
     individual scientists, that biotech foods are safe and 
     valuable;
       Whereas European Union decisions on agriculture and food 
     biotechnology are being driven by policies that have no 
     scientific justification, do not take into account its 
     capacity for solving problems facing mankind, and are 
     critical of the leading role of the United States in 
     scientific advancement;
       Whereas since the late 1990s, the European Union has 
     opposed the use of agriculture biotechnology and pursued 
     policies which result in slowing the development and support 
     of genetically-engineered products around the world;
       Whereas the five-year moratorium on the approval of new 
     agriculture biotechnology products entering the European 
     market has no scientific basis, effectively prohibits most 
     United States corn exports to Europe, violates European Union 
     law, and clearly breaches World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     rules;
       Whereas since its implementation in October 1998, the 
     moratorium has blocked more than $300,000,000 annually in 
     United States corn exports to countries in the European 
     Union;
       Whereas the European Union's unjustified moratorium on 
     agriculture biotech approvals has ramifications far beyond 
     the United States and Europe, forcing a slowdown in the 
     adoption and acceptance of beneficial biotechnology to the 
     detriment of starving people around the world; and
       Whereas in the fall of 2002 it was reported that famine-
     stricken African countries rejected humanitarian food aid 
     from the United States because of ill-informed health and 
     environmental concerns and fear that future exports to the 
     European Union would be jeopardized: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports and 
     applauds the efforts of the Administration on behalf of the 
     Nation's farmers and sound science by challenging the long-
     standing, unwarranted moratorium imposed in the European 
     Union on agriculture and food biotech products and encourages 
     the President to continue to press this issue.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 252 introduced by my 
good friend from Missouri, Majority Whip Roy Blunt. This important 
resolution expresses support for the administration's World Trade 
Organization case against the European Union's unwarranted moratorium 
on agriculture and food biotech products.
  On May 13, 2003, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and 
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced that the United States, 
Argentina, Canada, and Egypt would file a WTO case against the European 
Union over its illegal 5-year moratorium on approving agricultural 
biotech products. Other countries expressing support for this case by 
joining it as third parties include Australia, Chile, Colombia, El 
Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Uruguay.
  Since the late 1990s, the European Union has opposed the use of 
agriculture biotechnology and pursued policies opposing genetically 
engineered products around the world. The current 5-year moratorium on 
the approval of new agriculture biotechnology products entering the 
European market has no scientific basis, effectively prohibits most 
United States corn exports to Europe, violates European Union law, and 
clearly breaches World Trade Organization rules.
  According to recent studies, biotechnology has made substantial 
contributions to the protection of the environment by reducing the 
application of pesticides, reducing soil erosion and creating an 
environment more hospitable to wildlife. Since its implementation in 
October 1998, the moratorium has blocked more than $300 million 
annually in United States corn exports to countries in the European 
Union. This is completely unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and support the 
administration, sound science, and United States farmers at the WTO.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Earlier this year, the U.S. Trade Representative announced that the 
United

[[Page 14267]]

States would file a World Trade Organization case against the European 
Union over its 5-year moratorium on approving genetically modified 
foods. The measure before us today supports the Bush administration's 
challenge to the EU's longstanding moratorium.
  The European Union is made up of sovereign countries whose citizens 
have decided that they would rather not eat genetically modified food. 
Mr. Speaker, when did the United States acquire the right to tell 
Europeans what they should be eating? The issue before us is not trade 
discrimination as the proponents of this bill have argued. The 
individual EU countries are simply debating whether or not to implement 
a domestic policy related to genetically modified food which would also 
be applied to imports.
  Due to the lack of hard data about the long-term health effects, in 
the United States there has also been public concern about consuming 
genetically modified products. According to a Rutgers University Food 
Policy Institute study, 90 percent of Americans said that foods created 
through genetic engineering should have labels on them. I am proud to 
join with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) in his efforts to 
require the labeling of genetically engineered food.
  Although there have been few studies devoted to health effects of 
genetically modified food, some scientists claim that there may be a 
link between the resurgence of infectious diseases and genetic 
modifications in the U.S. food supply. There have even been cases of 
lab animals suffering immune system damage and allergic reactions after 
eating biotech food.
  I think that Members would agree that the WTO should not interfere 
with the creation of domestic law in this Chamber, so I ask Members to 
apply the same principle to our friends in Europe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this heavy-handed measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 252. I commend the gentleman 
from Missouri for introducing this important resolution.
  It is clear that the U.S. must send a strong and unmistakable message 
to the European Union that its discriminatory and protectionist trade 
practices regarding biotechnology will not be tolerated. As the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe, this Member asserts that this 
is an important issue in trans-Atlantic relations. This resolution puts 
the House on record as supporting the U.S. in its efforts within the 
World Trade Organization to end these practices.
  The EU's current moratorium on approving new agricultural biotech 
products has no scientific basis.

                              {time}  1300

  It harms U.S. agricultural producers and it exacerbates food 
shortages in Africa. This Member has been strongly urging the 
administration to take action on this issue by bringing a case against 
the EU to the WTO, and is very pleased the announcement has been made 
that we have done so.
  The current EU restrictions on the importation of food with 
genetically modified organisms, GMOs, have cost agricultural producers 
billions of dollars in recent years. The U.S. must be aggressive in 
knocking down such non-tariff trade restrictions.
  The EU's delay on lifting the moratorium on biotech crops is 
unacceptable and the WTO action is certainly appropriate. The 
intransigence by the EU is having a very detrimental effect on American 
farmers. It has been reported that since the early 1990s, U.S. corn 
exports to Europe have plummeted 95 percent, and this issue is one of 
the causes. Incredibly, too, they have used their emotional arguments 
against GMOs to coerce African countries facing famine not to accept 
donated American food and agricultural products. So in contrast to what 
the gentleman from Wisconsin said, this is strictly not a European 
issue, this is coercion on their part against African countries who are 
compelled to leave that food donated to deal with famine and 
malnutrition setting on the docks.
  Also troubling are the indications that the EU is planning to move 
forward with labeling and traceability requirements that will continue 
to act as a mechanism to block U.S. agriculture products. This clearly 
runs counter to the WTO principle that rules should be based on 
scientific evidence.
  I think it is interesting to note that David Byrne, EU Commissioner 
for Health and Consumer Protection, has been quoted as saying, ``The 
EU's position on genetically modified food is that it is as safe as 
conventional food.'' However, the moratorium remains in place and 
American farmers continue to lose valuable markets, not just in Europe, 
but third world countries. This matters because it is more important to 
the farmers today facing difficult times due to the ongoing drought and 
lower revenue.
  When filing the WTO case, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick 
stated clearly why it is so important for the U.S. to take action. He 
said, ``The EU's moratorium violates WTO rules. People around the world 
have been eating biotech food for years. Biotech food helps nourish the 
world's hungry population, offers tremendous opportunities for better 
health and nutrition and protects the environment by reducing soil 
erosion and pesticide use.'' This Member believes that the EU's GMO 
standards are transparently devoid of any relationship to sound 
science, and are either based strictly on emotion or are designed quite 
simply as trade barriers, or both.
  The U.S. is correct in taking strong action to bring this back to 
reason. I strongly support H.R. 252 and urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), for his leadership on this 
matter to protect consumers in this country and also to protect the 
rights of farmers.
  The fact of the matter is that this action would harm U.S. farmers. 
EU consumers have clearly expressed their desire to buy non-genetically 
engineered foods. However, the weak U.S. biotech regulations prevent 
U.S. exports of non-genetically engineered foods because of fears they 
are contaminated. H. Res. 252 fails to address weak agriculture 
regulations that leave non-GE food vulnerable to contamination by 
genetically engineered foods.
  EU consumers are clamoring for non-genetically engineered food. All 
we need to do is to sell them what they want and U.S. farmers will have 
a strong market again.
  When you think about it, U.S. agriculture has been the pride of the 
world. We have been the breadbasket of the world. Our agriculture is 
second to none. But of course, when you have these corporate 
agribusinesses come in with a different agenda, then you see the 
interests of farmers undermined.
  Now, several farm organizations oppose H. Res. 252 because it 
supports a complaint to the World Trade Organization challenging the 
EU's authorization system on approving genetically engineered food. H. 
Res. 252 is a gift to corporate agribusiness. That is why the National 
Family Farm Coalition, the American Corn Growers Association and the 
Soybean Producers of America all oppose H. Res. 252.
  Family farmers have suffered a great deal of damage to their trade 
markets because agribusiness pushed a product on U.S. farmers that the 
people of the world rightfully refused to accept.
  The recently completed national survey of corn producers by the 
American Corn Growers Foundation, conducted as farmers began planting 
corn in April, shows that farmers do not support this complaint to the 
WTO. Seventy-six percent of farmers stated that the U.S. should not 
file a WTO lawsuit against Europe regarding genetically engineered 
food. Seventy-eight percent of farmers believe in keeping your 
customers satisfied and in keeping world markets open to U.S. corn, and 
that means planting traditional non-GMO corn varieties instead of 
biotech GMO

[[Page 14268]]

corn varieties. Eighty-two percent of farmers believe that the U.S. 
Government must respect the rights of Europeans, Japanese, and all 
consumers worldwide so they are able to make a choice as to whether 
they and their children consume foods containing genetically engineered 
commodities.
  Only, and I say only, large agribusiness supports the bill and this 
bill will increase the profits of large agribusiness, and it will do it 
at the expense of farmers and at the expense of consumers.
  This is a time for us to stand up for the American farmer who is 
having difficulty surviving. Family farmers are having trouble 
surviving because they cannot get their price and they cannot get 
access to markets. Both of these are occasioned by the problems brought 
about by agribusiness and by monopolies in agriculture.
  We should stand up for the family farmers and oppose H. Res. 252. We 
should create policies which enable our family farmers to get those 
markets in Europe, that we know have belonged to them for so many 
years, but have been precluded because of the practices of 
agribusiness.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp) for bringing this important resolution to the floor 
in such a timely fashion. I introduced this resolution 2 weeks ago, and 
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), our 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our conference 
chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for joining me in this 
effort.
  This is a timely effort. It is a discussion we need to have. It is a 
discussion that, frankly, in the European community has gone on for too 
long. In October 1998, the European Union did a tremendous disservice 
to American biotechnology by issuing a ban on the importing of 
agricultural biotech crops. Although this action was supposed to be a 
moratorium, it has lasted now for close to 5 years.
  In my opinion, this is no longer a moratorium, but a ban which is 
clearly a violation of Europe's WTO obligations and needs to be 
reversed as soon as possible.
  The damage that this moratorium has done is dramatic, to say the 
least. For example, since the moratorium went into effect, U.S. corn 
exports have diminished from a high of 1.56 million metric tons to 
approximately 23,000 metric tons last year. This has resulted in the 
loss of close to $1 billion in corn sales. The tragic thing is that 
there is no basis, scientific or otherwise, that can justify such an 
economic hardship on our corn farmers and on other farmers of other 
products that take advantage of new technology.
  On May 13, the administration took the first steps toward rectifying 
this situation by filing a World Trade Organization case against the 
European Union over its illegal 5-year moratorium on approving 
agricultural biotech products. Despite repeated assurances from 
European officials that the moratorium would be lifted, there is no 
sign of any change in policy. In fact, there is ample evidence that 
this policy will continue.
  The position that the European Union and many of its member countries 
took regarding our efforts to provide food to Africa is also mentioned 
in this resolution. The idea that starving people would not be allowed 
to have access to the same kinds of products that American consumers 
use every day is an idea that is unacceptable.
  The Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, chaired by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith) will be looking carefully 
at this issue tomorrow, with the Speaker as the leadoff witness.
  My colleagues and I introduced House Resolution 252 because we 
believe that the Bush administration is correct in this area and needs 
to take the appropriate action on behalf of our Nation's farmers and on 
behalf of sound science by challenging this moratorium on agriculture 
and food biotech products.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 252. This bill is not 
about solving world hunger and it is not about promoting agriculture. 
What this bill is about is promoting bad policy. This bill goes to the 
fundamental issues of sovereignty and shifting power from 
democratically determined public health laws and rules to corporate 
interests. Ultimately this and chapter 11, the investor state 
provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement, in the Singapore 
and Chilean agreements, probably every other agreement that the 
Zoellick Trade Representative's office will negotiate, will be used to 
override all kinds of public health and worker safety laws.
  Understand what this is. What we are doing is we are telling the 
Europeans that they cannot enforce their own food safety laws. The 
European Union has passed legislation specifically determining what 
kind of food products, what kinds of food safety laws that they wanted. 
This resolution is telling them that we have the right in the United 
States to override what the European Union democratically elected 
Parliament and democratically determined rules and regulations want to 
do.
  Imagine if the French, the French of all people, or the Germans, came 
to us and came to the World Trade Organization and said we do not like 
an environmental law, we do not like a safe drinking water law, a food 
safety law, that the United States Congress has passed and we want to 
override it. How dare the French or Germans try to override our public 
health laws and compromise our sovereignty.
  How dare the United States tell the Germans and French and the Poles, 
new members of the EU and our allies in the war in Iraq, or anybody 
else in Europe, how dare we try to override their public health and 
their public safety laws? Imagine if they did that to us. We have no 
business saying we know best. We are going to tell you in France, you 
in Germany, you in Poland, you in England, we are going to tell you 
what your public safety laws are going to say, what your public health 
laws are going to say.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to vote no on H. Res. 252.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan, a member of the Committee on Agriculture and a good 
colleague.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  This an important discussion. Maybe it would be reasonable, Mr. 
Speaker, to start out trying to explain what is biotechnology?
  Gregor Mendel discovered dominant and recessive traits in plants in 
the mid 19th century. He started taking two quality plants and crossing 
them to see if you could come out with an improved variety. So we have 
had cross-breeding, we have had hybrid breeding ever since. Now we have 
finished gene cataloguing of an agricultural plant called the 
Arabidopsis, a mustard plant.
  But with 25,000 genes, you just took your chances when mixing two 
plants together. Sometimes the product turned out poisonous or 
allergenic. Sometimes it was very undesirable for a raft of other 
reasons.
  Now we have the scientific technology to pick out one single gene and 
decide what characteristics are going to evolve from that gene, and 
instead of taking your chances by mixing 25,000 or 30,000 genes of two 
plants, you pick out one gene because you want a certain 
characteristic. You put it into that other plant and predetermine what 
is going to happen as a result.

                              {time}  1315

  Now, there is a lot of scare of what might happen generations from 
now. In

[[Page 14269]]

the discussion of this resolution, it seems to me that we should not be 
debating whether this is a trade issue. This is now going to be in the 
hands of the WTO to decide whether or not it is unfair. But everybody, 
Mr. Speaker, needs to understand, other countries are trying to keep 
our products out of their country for one reason or another, 
restricting imports for bio sanitary reasons or anything else they can 
come up with. And in this case, it appears that they are trying to keep 
our agricultural products, that we produce more efficiently, out of 
Europe and Japan and some of these other countries, simply because they 
do not want it to disrupt the problems of their farmers and they want 
to protect their markets. We are going to let the WTO decide if it is 
restraint of trade. But as we evolve into greater assurance that we are 
going to have safety, both to human health, to animals, and to the 
environment, we need to move ahead with this technology.
  Look, the possibilities in developing countries are so tremendous. 
That is why our whip mentioned that the day after tomorrow I am holding 
a hearing on biotechnology. The Speaker is going to lead off the 
testimony in that hearing on the potential and safety of biotechnology. 
We are going to have Rita Caldwell from NSF come to tell us about the 
implementation of what we put in my NSF bill in terms of working with 
African scientists, developing products that are going to help their 
particular country. And if we get into Africa, eventually, science and 
biotechnology are going to prevail. We are going to have Mr. Natsios, 
the administrator of AID, say how important it is that we do not 
restrict this technology for developing countries.
  Vote for this resolution and vote to let science, not emotion, rule 
the future of agricultural biotechnology.
  On May 12th, the Speaker of the House and members of Congress joined 
with the Bush Administration to challenge the European Union's import 
ban on genetically modified (GM) crops. WTO rules, while allowing 
countries to reject imports on the basis of health and environmental 
concerns, require that any such policy be supported by scientific 
evidence.
  However, the EU has refused to process new applications for trade of 
transgenic food crops since 1998 without even attempting to demonstrate 
any compelling scientific reasons. It is estimated that over $300 
million annually in U.S. corn exports alone are being lost. Even EU 
Enviroment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has admitted that, ``We have 
already waited too long to act. The moratorium is illegal and not 
justified.''
  While the EU stance on GM crops is an unfair economic burden on 
American farmers, it is also an unjust burden on the world's poorest 
continent. With approximately 180 million undernourished people, Africa 
stands to benefit tremendously from GM crops.
  The EU is exploiting Africa's dependence on the EU market to stall 
acceptance of GM crops. For example, with its population literally 
starving last year, Zambia rejected 23,000 metric tons of U.S. food aid 
because Europe might reject future Zambian corn exports. EU pressure is 
even impeding research on new transgenic crop varieties important to 
bringing Africa closer to sustainability.
  The Speaker of the House, USAID Administrator, and leading scientists 
will testify at my Research Subcommittee hearing this Thursday. We will 
examine barriers to plant biotechnology in Africa and new government 
programs supporting partnerships with African scientists in Africa.
  The U.S. challenge moves us one step closer to removing unfair 
barriers that hurt American farmers and deny the people of Africa a 
tool for combating hunger. Please support H. Res. 252.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time; and with 1 minute, I will have to be brief. This really is not 
about biotech. It is about whether global agriculture trade will be 
conducted under the rules adopted by the countries pursuant to trade 
agreements.
  There is a procedure for evaluating the safety and soundness of 
agriculture products to be exported into a marketplace. Under the WTO, 
it requires that measures regulating imports be based on sufficient 
scientific evidence and that countries operate regulatory approval and 
procedures without undue delay. Basically, the Europeans have thrown up 
this effort to keep our product out, and they have not followed the WTO 
actions in so pursuing this course of action.
  That is why the resolution before us commending our President is 
exactly the right thing to do. We can only participate as a full 
partner with other nations in trade agreements if people follow the 
rules. We have rules. The rules are being ignored to keep their markets 
closed to our exports. We need to pass this resolution.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to share in the comments of the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and agree with him. Also, I 
would ask the Members that are thinking of voting against this, this 
boils down to be really kind of a moral issue of famine in Africa. I 
learned about this issue from our former Member, Congressman Tony Hall.
  What is happening in Africa, there are 35 million to 40 million 
people that are basically almost starving to death. In Zambia and 
Zimbabwe, they have been using this argument, and the people are 
starving and the genetically modified or biotech foods are in the 
warehouses. What is taking place is some of our friends, and they are 
friends in Europe, are using this as a trade mechanism with regard to 
their economy and their jobs; and as a result of this, people are dying 
in Africa.
  So this is an issue with regard to the economy, but I will not say 
more important; but I personally believe it is more important. It is an 
issue of people, particularly in Africa. People living in Ethiopia, 
there is a famine of biblical proportions. Now, fortunately, the 
Ethiopian Government is not foreclosing this; but in Zambia they are, 
in Zimbabwe, Mugabe has it in the warehouses and the people are 
starving outside, and they cannot eat. Some of the other countries, 
Uganda is going through the same thing. They have genetically modified 
banana plants. Their banana industry is falling off, and they are 
afraid to use it because they are afraid they will not be able to have 
their exports going in to France.
  So this resolution is a good resolution. This also would help us feed 
the people of the world who are starving. So I would hope everyone 
would vote for this. And if any Members have any doubts before this 
vote, they may want to call Tony up in Rome at the Food and 
Agricultural Organization and get his thinking, because this is a major 
issue of famine and feeding hungry people, particularly in Africa.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 252, but not because 
of the benefits to U.S. trade or our agricultural industry, but out of 
concern for the millions of hungry people around the globe. In a world 
as plentiful as ours, it is unconscionable that women and children 
still die of hunger.
  I have traveled to Africa to witness the devastation of famines, 
first in 1984 and most recently, earlier this year. I saw women and 
children who were too weak to feed themselves. Thankfully, relief 
efforts for the 30 million Africans, whose lives are in peril, are not 
being complicated by refusals of certain food supplies, as was the case 
last year in Zambia.
  Developing countries need biotechnology to improve crop viability and 
yield. However, as long as such agricultural products remain 
unacceptable to European markets, developing countries are likely to 
continue to reject the very thing they need to bring them to self-
sufficiency and beyond.
  American agricultural products are among the safest in the world--
even Europe's officials admit that. But making a convincing case on the 
safety of U.S. products is difficult.
  Last year, Zambians turned down genetically modified maize from the 
U.S., fearing that when their agricultural industry recovers, they 
would no longer be able to sell their products to their main export 
market, Europe.
  In an effort to alleviate this concern, and at considerably increased 
costs, the U.S. offered a milled version free from any seeds that 
farmers could plant, thereby protecting Zambia's agricultural sector. 
Tragically, the Zambian government never accepted the food.
  Famine relief and building longer term self-sufficiency in Africa is 
a global issue that requires a response from all nations. The U.S.

[[Page 14270]]

has provided leadership through its contribution in 2002 of 51 percent 
of the food provided by the UN World Food Programme. Europe's combined 
contribution totaled only 27 percent.
  I don't know which saddens me more, knowing that European countries 
like France have the ability to contribute more to famine relief 
efforts, but haven't, or knowing the situation is being exacerbated by 
European opposition to importing biotech agricultural products.
  This resolution is an important statement to encourage the 
Administration in its efforts to challenge the unwarranted moratorium 
by EU countries on genetically modified agricultural products.
  I urge a unanimous vote of support.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
252 supporting the United States' effort to end the European Union's 
discriminatory trade practices regarding agriculture biotechnology.
  Biotechnology is critically important for the future of U.S. 
agriculture, not just the farmers in my district. Genetically enhanced 
crops have increased yields, decreased production inputs, and reduced 
pesticide usage. In the near future, this technology will allow U.S. 
farmers to produce healthier, fresher, and more nutritious food 
products for consumers.
  Throughout its lifetime, agricultural biotechnology has been the 
subject of the strictest testing by USDA, FDA, and EPA prior to 
consumption, and has made considerable contributions to protection of 
the environment by reducing the application of pesticides.
  However, amongst this growing climate for innovation, the European 
Union has continued to pursue a path of opposition. The EU moratorium 
has cost U.S. farmers almost $300 million a year in corn exports alone 
and goes directly against the WTO mandate that the regulation of 
imports be based on ``sufficient scientific evidence.'' As such, their 
policies have resulted in a slowdown of development and support of 
genetically engineered products around the world.
  I believe that the EU's opposition to agriculture biotechnology has 
much more to do with the discriminatory trading practices that they 
employ, rather than environmental science. I applaud the work of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative to 
challenge the EU's moratorium on this technology, and I am happy to 
lend my support to this important resolution. I urge Members' ``aye'' 
votes.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and to state 
my support and urge House support for the administration and its 
decision to take on the European Union and its discriminatory practices 
against biotech projects.
  Agriculture has changed greatly in recent years. When I was growing 
up on a farm in Johnston County, the most advanced technology we had 
was an old tractor. It was a big improvement, though, over the mule and 
plow that we had had previously.
  These days, biotechnology has moved farming to the cutting edge of 
technology. I have always been and still remain a strong supporter of 
using biotechnology to benefit American agriculture and our society as 
a whole. In fact, when I was appropriations chairman in North 
Carolina's general assembly, I helped fund the establishment of the 
North Carolina Biotechnology Center, because I could see biotechnology 
was the science of the future. Consequently, North Carolina has become 
a leader in the field of biotechnology.
  The gains that biotechnology brings to agriculture, efficiency, 
reduced use of pesticides, higher crop yields, and healthier products, 
are well documented. That is why I find it ironic that the continent 
that gave birth to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment is turning its 
back on a proven science, despite the increasing amount of evidence as 
to the safety and effectiveness of this technology.
  What is really a shame is that the Europeans' fear of biotechnology 
is having tragic consequences. The European Union is actually 
discouraging nations facing food shortages and famine from accepting 
food aid that may contain biotech products.
  The Europeans' actions and attitude regarding biotechnology are, at 
best, indefensible, and maybe immoral regarding the European Union's 
rule. I strongly applaud Ambassador Zoellick's work in this area, and I 
urge the passage of this resolution.
  I rise today in support of this resolution to state the House's 
support for the Administration in its decision to take on the European 
Union and its discriminatory practices against U.S. biotechnology 
products.
  Agriculture has changed greatly in recent years. When I was growing 
up on a farm in Johnston County, NC, the most advanced technology we 
had was a tractor, a big improvement over a plow, a mule. These days, 
biotechnology has moved farming to the cutting edge of technology.
  I have always been and still remain a strong supporter of using 
biotechnology to benefit American agriculture and our society as a 
whole.
  In fact, when I was appropriations chairman in the North Carolina 
General Assembly, I helped fund the establishment of the North Carolina 
Biotechnology Center because I could see biotech was a science of the 
future. Consequently, my State of North Carolina has prospered as a 
leader in the field.
  The gains that biotechnology brings to agriculture in efficiency, 
reduced use of pesticides, higher crop yields, and healthier products 
are well documented.
  That's why I find it ironic that the continent that gave birth to The 
Renaissance and The Enlightenment is turning its back on a proven 
science, despite the increasing amount of evidence as to the safety and 
effectiveness of this technology.
  And what's really a shame is that the Europeans' fear of 
biotechnology is having tragic consequences. The European Union is 
actually discouraging nations facing food shortages and famine from 
accepting U.S. food aid that may contain biotechnology products.
  The Europeans' actions and attitudes regarding biotechnology are 
indefensible, and according to WTO rules, illegal.
  I strongly applaud USTR Ambassador Zoellick for pressing forward with 
this case against the European Union in the WTO.
  We must continue to show the world that biotechnology offers a new 
Renaissance in agriculture for those willing to reject fear.
  I urge the House to pass this resolution, and show our support for a 
science that offers profound benefits for all of humanity.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, obviously, biotech is really important to 
the Midwest. Roughly 55 percent of the corn grown in Nebraska and a 
high percentage of the beans grown in Nebraska are biotech, and roughly 
$300 million in corn exports is being blocked by the current boycott.
  As has been mentioned by several speakers previously, this boycott is 
not about safety. It is a tariff, and it is a thinly disguised tariff. 
The European Union did the same thing in blocking our beef that was fed 
hormones. The WTO stepped in and said, look, that is nonsense. This is 
against WTO rules, so it is something that has precedent. So the 
European Union has simply said, well, we will go ahead and pay the 
fine; it saves us the money. We will pay $116 million a year in 
blocking your beef, and that is essentially what this tariff is doing 
as well.
  Already, people have mentioned several times about the fact that 
starving people, particularly people in Africa, have had their products 
blocked; and this is, I think, unconscionable.
  Lastly, let me just say in regard to the reduction of pesticides, 
water use, fertilizer, these are certainly good for the environment. 
And we hear people all around the country decrying biotech; and yet 
Brazil, when we were down there a year ago, said they really did not 
believe in biotech, and yet they are raising 1 million acres of 
soybeans. So they obviously know it is safe. So usually these are 
simply tariff barriers. I certainly applaud the resolution, and I urge 
support of it. It makes a lot of sense.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 252. 
I

[[Page 14271]]

feel compelled to remind all 280 million Americans once again that we 
are truly blessed in this country to have the most abundant food 
supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest 
cost to our people of any country in the world. That has not happened 
by accident. It has always happened because we have always used sound 
science, peer-reviewed, in order to make two blades of grass grow where 
one grew before.
  Now, we have repeatedly heard even today the explanation that the 
European Union maintains its ban on new approvals of biotech products 
because European consumers are unwilling to accept biotechnology due to 
safety concerns. That explanation disappoints me.
  There are no peer-reviewed, scientific risk assessments that conclude 
that food products of agriculture biotechnology are inherently less 
safe than their traditional counterparts. Bio-engineered crops in the 
United States are rigorously reviewed for environmental and food safety 
by USDA, EPA, and FDA. Food safety reviews of bio-engineered crops 
focus on the safety of the newly introduced trait, on the safety of the 
whole food, and consider issues including toxicity, allergenicity, 
nutritional content, and antibiotic resistance.
  Our forward-looking regulatory system has not only ensured the safety 
of our food supply, it has allowed the development of technologies that 
have improved our food supply and lowered the cost of production. 
Besides lowering costs, biotechnology has the potential to reduce crop 
risks and improve food security in developing countries, as we heard 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) speak about a moment ago. 
Examples include US-AID projects in Africa to improve production of 
peas and bananas.
  Regulations based on protectionism instead of science have a chilling 
effect on research and the adoption of biotechnology. When there is 
uncertainty that a product of biotechnology will be accepted, farmers 
are reluctant to adopt the product, despite its proven safety and 
benefits.
  I believe that the US and the EU have a responsibility as developed 
nations to lead by example in developing regulatory systems that not 
only promote safe food, but also promote a better and more secure food 
supply.
  And I am disappointed that Europe has so far been unable to construct 
a science-based regulatory system for food that encourage development 
of new technologies that can benefit developed and developing countries 
around the world.
  The resolution before us today supports our requests for 
consultations with Europe on this important issue, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution and I hope all of the 
Members of the House will support it. Earlier this year, as the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I had the opportunity to meet 
with Pascal Lamy, the European Union Commissioner for Trade, and to 
strongly make the case that this moratorium that Europe has imposed 
upon U.S. biotech products should be dropped and a reasonable system 
should be administered in its place; not what they are currently 
contemplating, which is a tracing and labeling requirement, which will 
make it in some instances even harder for us to sell our products into 
Europe.
  I pointed out to them that people have been starving in Africa 
because of their policies. He took great umbrage at my suggestion that 
the Europeans were in fact promoting such a policy in Africa, but it 
turns out that that is exactly the case.
  Through the organizations that they hire to distribute their own 
European food aid in African countries, they have spread the word that 
if they feed U.S. biotech grapes to their livestock, they will not be 
able to sell that livestock into Europe. It turns out that the Spanish, 
who agree with us on this position, by the way, grow thousands and 
thousands of acres of biotech crops in Spain, feed it to livestock, and 
sell it all over Europe anyway.
  So the European policy on this issue is clearly nothing more than an 
artificial trade barrier. It is against the interests of their people, 
their consumers, to have the opportunity to have greater quality foods, 
foods that have greater vitamin retention, foods that are more 
environmentally sound, foods that can be grown in places like 
subSaharan African that are more drought-resistant. All of these things 
are important for us to promote, and that is what biotechnology does.
  I commend the Bush administration for taking this case to the World 
Trade Organization, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 252. America's 
farmers and ranchers deserve to have the best technologies available at 
their disposal and I am hopeful that an end to the EUs illegal and 
longstanding moratorium on agricultural biotechnology may be near.
  Agricultural biotechnology is one of the most promising developments 
in modern science. This science should be embraced and not banned, for 
it can help to provide answers to the problems of hunger around the 
world. It would be a shame if developing countries in Africa continue 
to deny food aid containing biotechnology because of the 
antibiotechnology attitudes in Europe. The politicizing of agricultural 
biotechnology should end so that we can return to providing food aid to 
the hungry as soon as possible.
  I commend the Bush administration for taking this case to the World 
Trade Organization. The EU moratorium on biotech approvals has been 
spreading beyond Europe. In the fall of 2002, some famine stricken 
African nations refused U.S. food aid because it contained biotech 
corn. These countries were ill informed on the health and environmental 
impact of biotechnology and were also concerned that their own 
agriculture exports to Europe would be denied if they accepted the 
product. Zambia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe refused United States food 
aid made of the same wholesome food that Americans eat every day. 
Zimbabwe and Mozambique eventually accepted United States food aid 
after making costly arrangements to mill the corn so that African 
farmers could not grow it. Zambia continues to refuse United States 
corn.
  As noted by the French Academy of Sciences, more than 300 million 
North Americans have been eating biotech corn and soybeans for years. 
No adverse health consequences have ever been reported. Many 
biotechnology products are being developed that will have unlimited 
benefits to vitamin deficient children. Research continues on a gene to 
add to rice which will contain more beta carotene, a precursor to 
vitamin A. Up to half of a million children per year go blind due to 
vitamin A deficiency. Another product being developed could also help 
reduce iron deficiencies, thus reducing anemia among millions of women 
and children worldwide.
  The United States is not trying to force consumers to buy these 
biotechnology products. Consumer choice is the key and the moratorium 
is an example of the European government denying their consumes a 
choice. The moratorium is not based on science, but it is a blatant 
protectionist trade barrier. American farmers and ranchers are merely 
asking that their safe, sound and affordable product be allowed on the 
shelves in Europe.
  America's farmers and ranchers produce the safest and most bountiful 
food supply in the world. Their goal is to share this bounty with those 
who need it most, while at the same time having access to markets 
around the world. While United States farmers have utilized many of the 
new technologies, some farmers are hesitant to use biotechnology 
because of the moratorium in Europe.
  The European Union's (EU) illegal and unscientific moratorium should 
be lifted and a WTO case against the EU will send a message to the rest 
of the world that illegitimate, non-science based trade barriers will 
not be tolerated.
  I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 252.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me. I would also like to thank the leadership of a colleague of 
mine, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has been tremendous on 
this issue.
  I do not know why we are telling the World Trade Organization what to 
do

[[Page 14272]]

because they do not listen to us anyway. We tried to inform them and 
advise them on steel tariffs and they did not listen to us. We are not 
against trade. We understand there is going to be trade. There has 
always been trade, there always will be trade.
  What we are against is shifting the debate from this Chamber, 
shifting the debate from the Parliament, shifting the debate from the 
Russian Duma to a bureaucratic organization behind closed doors with no 
accountability. They are not elected by anybody on the face of this 
Earth, they are appointed, and they represent the corporate interests. 
That is the problem.
  We are losing our sovereignty in this country, and if we tell the 
European Union or if we tell another country what they need to do, at 
what point do they tell us what we need to do? When is it our labor 
laws, our environmental laws that become exposed?
  I think that is the thing that we need to be most focused on is that 
we are losing our sovereignty. We want strong environmental laws in 
this country, we want strong labor laws in this country, and the World 
Trade Organization has proven and consistently tried to undermine those 
things. We need to fix the system and we need to let the WTO be O-U-T.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as co-chairman of the House 
Biotechnology Caucus in strong support of House Resolution 252. 
Approvals for biotech commodities are critical to the future of 
biotechnology. By filing a complaint with the WTO, the administration 
has taken the necessary steps to respond to the European Union's 
moratorium on biotech food products.
  The EU moratorium is a clear violation of Europe's WTO obligations. 
The policy has cost American farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in 
export sales and seriously hindered the adoption of an enormously 
beneficial technology. Moreover, the hysteria brought on by the EU 
policies has begun to spread beyond European borders. It was time to 
act.
  Specifically, the European Union represents a $1 billion per year 
market for U.S. soybeans and their products, a $500 million market for 
U.S. corn gluten feed, and a former $300 million per year market for 
the U.S. commodity corn.
  The U.S. lost its commodity corn export business to the European 
Union in recent years over issues related to the acceptance of 
biotechnology-enhanced products.
  As the U.S. already exports more than one-third of its agricultural 
production and farm States such as Illinois export more than 40 percent 
of their agricultural products, it is essential that the EU model for 
food safety and precaution is stopped before their policy and attitudes 
towards biotechnology affect U.S. export markets around the world.
  Recently, several Illinois farmers returning from Europe concluded 
that the U.S. needs to take the EU to the WTO over the current EU 
moratorium on biotech crops.
  I commend the administration for their leadership in taking the 
necessary steps to end this ridiculous moratorium, and urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution and send a strong signal to the 
EU and the rest of the world that the U.S. will not tolerate 
illegitimate, unscientific barriers to U.S. agricultural exports.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of sovereignty. The 
democratically elected governments of Europe have chosen, with 
tremendous support and urging by their own people, to urge more study 
and delay on the massive introduction of genetically modified organisms 
into their agricultural system. A large majority of Americans would 
like to see the same testing.
  We heard about testing, that this is regulated by the FDA. No, it is 
not. It is not regulated by the FDA. They said they have no 
jurisdiction, and it has been tested by the EPA. No, these things have 
not been tested by the EPA. It has been tested by the industry, who 
tells us, do not worry, it is safe. So the peer review tests we heard 
about and the government regulation that we heard about do not exist 
for the American people, and certainly not for the European people.
  So are we going to turn to this faceless, conflict-ridden 
bureaucracy, the WTO, and ask it to preempt the laws of the sovereign 
nations of Europe? Then how about next week, when someone asks it to 
preempt some of our consumer health and safety or labor or 
environmental laws? That will happen, we can bet on it.
  We heard a lot about Africa. Well, they will accept the food aid if 
the seed corn is ground up or the wheat is milled. They will take it. 
They are happy to take it. They just do not want the starving people 
there to take it out and plant it and begin to have it cross with their 
traditional crops. So that is not too tough of a thing to accomplish.
  There are huge problems in the distribution system, these massively 
corrupt dictatorships. People of Africa are not being starved because 
the Europeans have chosen to protect their people and their agriculture 
against unknown, untested science, unregulated. That is not a true 
fact.
  Let us have the debate about what this is about, which is new 
corporate interests that want to increase profits. Most of this is 
about increasing profits. Tell the people in India who have to buy 
patented seed year after year, or the people in Canada who have been 
prosecuted because they tried to replant the seed or it crossed into 
their crops and they have been prosecuted by Montana, that this is 
about making the world safe for people to not starve, and for the 
environment and all those things. No, it is, pure and simple, about 
profits for American industry.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues at stake 
here, including one that has been mentioned by my colleagues, the 
gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Brown and Mr. Ryan, with respect to the WTO 
and the fact that it strips all nations of sovereignty. That is an 
issue that this House inevitably will have to deal with when, at once, 
legislation should come before us to in effect cancel our relationship 
with the WTO.
  Now, House Resolution 252 falsely argues for a solution to world 
hunger, but its prime motive is to garner bigger profits for biotech 
companies looking to dump GE foods on poor countries. This is really 
about hungry biotech companies, because the basic cause of hunger is 
money, not food. The facts of world hunger lead to a much different 
conclusion.
  Currently, 800 million go hungry every day. Malnutrition and related 
illnesses are the cause of death for 12 million children each year, but 
a lack of food is not the reason. Enough wheat, rice, and other grains 
are produced each year to provide 3,500 daily calories per person. So 
why do so many people go hungry each day? Much of this food goes to 
those who have the money and the ability to transport it. Food and 
other farm products flow from areas of hunger and need to areas where 
money is concentrated, in the northern hemisphere.
  While at least 200 million Indians go hungry, in 1995 India exported 
$625 million worth of wheat and flour and $1.3 billion worth of rice, 
the two staples of the Indian diet. Only one-quarter of the food 
produced in Ethiopia reaches the market because of the high cost of 
marketing transactions.
  There are hungry kids in this country, Mr. Speaker. What has biotech 
done for them?
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a 
summary of a report we wrote on biotechnology in the Committee on 
Science called ``Seeds of Opportunity.'' The total report is available 
at: www.house.gov/nicksmith/opportunity.pdf.
  The report referred to is as follows:

[[Page 14273]]




                                summary

  The Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science held a 
series of three hearings entitled, ``Plant Genome Research: From the 
Lab to the Field to the Market: Parts I-III,'' to examine plant 
genomics, its application to commercially important crop plants, and 
the benefits, safety, and oversight of plant varieties produced using 
biotechnology. The testimony and other information presented at these 
hearings and information gathered at various briefings provides the 
basis for the findings and recommendations in this report.
  Almost without exception, the crop plants in use today have been 
genetically modified. The development of new plant varieties through 
selective breeding has been improving agriculture and food production 
for thousands of years. In the 19th century, the basic principles of 
heredity were discovered by Gregor Mendel, whose studies on inheritance 
in garden peas laid the foundation for the modern science of genetics. 
Subsequent investigations advanced our understanding of the location, 
composition, and function of genes, and a critical breakthrough 
revolutionized the field in 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick 
described the double helix structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), 
the substance of heredity. This ground breaking research set the stage 
for deciphering the genetic code and led to the rapid advances in 
practical application of genetics in medicine, animal science, and 
agriculture.
  The development of the science of genetics in the 20th century was a 
tremendously important factor in the plant breeding programs that have 
produced the remarkable diversity of fruits, vegetables, and grains 
that we enjoy today and that provide food security for the poor nations 
of the world. Traditional cross-breeding has been very useful in 
improving crop plants, but it is a time consuming process that results 
in the uncontrolled recombination of tens of thousands of genes, 
commonly producing unwanted traits that must be eliminated through 
successive rounds of backcrossing. Improving crops through traditional 
methods also is subject to severe limitations because of the 
constraints imposed by sexual compatibility, which limit the diversity 
of useful genetic material.
  With the arrival of biotechnology, plant breeders are now able to 
develop novel varieties of plants with a level of precision and range 
unheard of just two decades ago. Using this technology, breeders can 
introduce selected, useful genes into a plant to express a specific, 
desirable trait in a significantly more controlled process than 
afforded by traditional breeding methods.
  U.S. farmers have been quick to adopt plants modified using new 
biotechnology, including commercial crops that resist biologically 
insect and viral pests and tolerate broad-spectrum herbicides used to 
control weeds. As our knowledge of plant genetics expands, new 
varieties of plants with improved nutrition, taste, or other 
characteristics desired by consumers will become available. The 
federally-funded plant genome program provides much of the essential 
basic research on plant genetics required to develop new varieties of 
commercially important crops through advanced breeding programs.
  For over two decades, the application of biotechnology has been 
assessed for safety. Oversight of agricultural biotechnology includes 
both regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms that have been developed 
over the last five decades for all crop plants and conventional 
agricultural systems. Federal regulation of agricultural biotechnology 
is guided by the 1986 Coordinated Framework for Regulation of 
Biotechnology, which laid out the responsibilities for the different 
regulatory agencies, and the 1992 Statement on Scope, which established 
the principle that regulation should focus on the characteristics of 
the organism, not the method used to produce it. Three federal agencies 
are responsible for regulating agricultural biotechnology under 
existing statutes: the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is 
responsible for ensuring that new varieties are safe to grow; the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for 
ensuring that new pest-resistant varieties are safe to grow and 
consume; and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is 
responsible for ensuring that new varieties are safe to consume.
  Although biotechnology has had an uninterrupted record of safe use, 
political activists in Europe have waged well-funded campaigns to 
persuade the public that the products of high-tech agriculture may be 
harmful to human health and the environment. As a result of these 
efforts, public confidence in the safety of agricultural biotechnology 
has been seriously undermined in Europe. Many European countries have 
established new rules and procedures specifically designed to address 
``genetically modified organisms,'' and these have had a detrimental 
impact on international trade in agricultural products.
  The controversy over agricultural biotechnology now has spread to the 
United States, the world's largest grower of plants and consumer of 
foods produced using this technology. At the core of the debate is food 
safety, particularly the possibility that unexpected genetic effects 
could introduce allergens or toxins into the food supply. The use of 
antibiotic resistance markers also has been criticized as dangerous to 
human health. As a result, there have been calls for both increased 
testing and labeling requirements for foods created using 
biotechnology.
  Environmental concerns also have been raised. It has been suggested, 
for example, that widespread use of plants engineered with built-in 
protection against insect and viral pests could accelerate the 
development of pesticide-resistant insects or could have a negative 
impact on populations of beneficial insects, such as the Monarch 
butterfly. It also has been argued that the use of herbicide-tolerant 
plants could increase herbicide use and that ``superweeds'' could be 
developed through cross-pollination between these plants and nearby 
weedy relatives.
  Extensive scientific evaluation worldwide has produced no evidence to 
support these claims. Far from causing environmental and health 
problems, agricultural biotechnology has tremendous potential to reduce 
the environmental impact of farming, provide better nutrition, and help 
feed a rapidly growing world population. Crops designed to resist pests 
and to tolerate herbicides and environmental stresses, such as freezing 
temperatures, drought, and high salinity, will make agricultural more 
efficient and sustainable by reducing synthetic chemical inputs and 
promoting no-tillage agricultural practices. Stress-tolerant crops also 
will reduce pressure on irreplaceable natural resources like 
rainforests by opening up presently nonarable lands to agriculture. 
Other plants are being developed that will produce renewable industrial 
products, such as lubricating oils and biodegradable plastics, and 
perform bioremediation of contaminated soils.
  Biotechnology will be a key element in the fight against malnutrition 
worldwide. Deficiencies of vitamin A and iron, for example, are very 
serious health issues in many regions of the developing world, causing 
childhood blindness and maternal anemia in millions of people who rely 
on rice as a dietary staple. Biotechnology has been used to produce a 
new strain of rice--Golden Rice--that contains both vitamin A (by 
providing its precursor, beta-carotene) and iron. The Subcommittee 
heard about other research aimed at improving the nutrition of a wide 
variety of food staples, such as cassava, corn, rice, and other cereal 
grains, that can be a significant help in the fight for food security 
in many developing countries.
  The merging of medical and agricultural biotechnology has opened up 
new ways to develop plant varieties with characteristics to enhance 
health. Advanced understanding of how natural plant substances, known 
as phytochemicals, confer protection against cancer and other diseases 
is being used to enhance the level of these substances in the food 
supply. Work is underway that will deliver medicines and edible 
vaccines through common foods that could be used to immunize 
individuals against a wide variety of enteric and other infectious 
diseases. These developments will have far-reaching implications for 
improving human health worldwide, potentially saving millions of lives 
in the poorest areas of the world by providing a simpler medicine 
production and distribution system.
  Set against these benefits, however, is the idea that transferring a 
gene from one organism to an unrelated organism using recombinant DNA 
techniques inherently entails greater risks than traditional cross 
breeding. The weight of the scientific evidence leads to the conclusion 
that there is nothing to substantiate scientifically the view that the 
products of agricultural biotechnology are inherently different or more 
risky than similar products of conventional breeding.
  The overwhelming view of the scientific community--including the 
National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, many 
professional scientific societies, the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development, the World Health Organization, and the 
research scientists who appeared before the subcommittee--is that risk 
assessment should focus on the characteristics of the plant and the 
environment into which it is to be introduced, not on the method of 
genetic manipulation and the source of the genetic material 
transferred. These risk factors apply equally to traditionally-bred 
plants.
  Years of research and experience demonstrate that plant varieties 
produced using

[[Page 14274]]

biotechnology, and the foods derived from them, are just as safe as 
similar varieties produced using classical plant breeding, and they may 
even be safer. Because more is known about the changes being made and 
because common crop varieties with which we have a broad range of 
experience are being modified, plants breeders can answer questions 
about safety that cannot be answered for the products of classical 
breeding techniques.
  FDA has adopted a risk-based regulatory approach consistent with 
these principles and with the long history of safe use of genetically-
modified plants and the foods derived from them. Its policies on 
voluntary consultation and labeling are consistent with the scientific 
consensus and provide essential public health protection.
  Unlike FDA regulations on food, USDA has instituted plant pest 
regulations, and EPA proposes to institute new plant pesticide 
regulations, that target selectively plants produced using 
biotechnology and apply substantive regulatory requirements to early 
stages of plant research and development. These regulations add greatly 
to the cost of developing new biotech plant varieties, harming both an 
emerging industry and the largely publicly-funded research base upon 
which it depends. Regulations and regulatory proposals that selectively 
capture the products of biotechnology should be modified to reflect the 
scientific consensus that the source of the gene and the methods used 
to transfer it are poor indicators of risk.
  In the international area, the United States should work to ensure 
that access to existing markets for agricultural products are 
maintained. The United States should not accept any international 
agreements that endorse the precautionary principle--which asserts that 
governments may make political decisions to restrict a product even in 
the absence of scientific evidence that a risk exists--and that depart 
from the principle of substantial equivalence adopted by a number of 
international bodies.
  Finally, the administration, industry, and scientific community have 
a responsibility to educate the public and improve the availability of 
information on the long record of safe use of agricultural 
biotechnology products. This is critically important to building 
consumer confidence and ensuring that sound science is used to make 
regulatory decisions.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  When I first came to this Congress, I was assigned to the Committee 
on Agriculture. It makes all kinds of sense. The district I represent 
in California produces about $4 billion value-added from agriculture. I 
have been dealing with this issue for more than a quarter of a century.
  What we just heard was a total fabrication of reality. We have heard 
about the green revolution, the attempt to feed more people in the 
world. In the old days, they used to take a plant, put a slit in it, 
and graft another portion of the plant onto it. That was science in 
those days.
  There is fundamentally no difference to what we now call 
biotechnology than understanding the way the world works, and through 
science improving our ability to produce food to feed people. 
Everything else is politics. Somehow, large corporations get involved, 
the desire to sell something to Africa that Africa does not want.
  I was in Africa 3 months ago. They pleaded with us to help them solve 
their problem. The problem is the Luddites in the world today who do 
not want to recognize science. Anybody who assists the Europeans in 
their unscientific opposition to wanting to do better with the amount 
we have is simply attempting to wreak havoc.
  Vote for science. Vote yes.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
supporting the Administration's efforts in challenging the European 
Union's five-year moratorium on biotech products. As an original 
cosponsor, I congratulate President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick for 
putting American farmers and sound science first by challenging this 
illegal trade ban on genetically modified foods before the WTO.
  Over the last few years, we have seen country after country 
implementing protectionist trade policies, like the EU moratorium, 
under the cloak of food safety--each one brought on by emotion, 
culture, or their own poor history with food safety regulation.
  Simply put, non-tariff protectionism is detrimental to the free 
movement of goods and services across borders. We all know that free 
trade benefits all countries. However, free trade will be rendered 
meaningless if it is short-circuited by non-tariff barriers that are 
based on fear and conjecture--not science.
  As the Representative of the 14th District in Illinois, my district 
currently covers portions of eight countries, including four of the top 
25 corn-producing counties, and three of the top 50 soybean-producing 
counties in the nation. The State of Illinois is the second-largest 
producing state of both corn and soybeans in the country. Forty percent 
of this production currently goes to exports, valued at approximately 
$2.7 billion per year.
  U.S. agriculture ranks among the top U.S. industries in export sales. 
In fact, the industry generated a $12 billion trade surplus in 2001, 
helping mitigate the growing merchandise trade deficit. It is important 
to realize that 34 percent of all corn acres and 75 percent of all 
soybean acres are genetically modified.
  And what exactly are we talking about when we say ``genetically 
modified?'' The EU would have you believe this is a new and special 
type of food, questionable for human consumption. In fact, since the 
dawn of time, farmers have been modifying plants to improve yields and 
create new varieties resistant to pests and diseases. Why would we want 
to snuff out human ingenuity that benefits farmers and consumers alike?
  The European Union has had an indefensible moratorium on genetically-
modified products in place for five years with no end in sight. This is 
a non-tariff barrier based simply on prejudice and misinformation, not 
sound science. In fact, their own scientists agree that genetically 
modified foods are safe. Still, regardless of the overwhelming evidence 
to the contrary, bans on genetically modified products continue to 
persist and multiply--the worldwide impact has been staggering.
  The current EU moratorium on genetically-modified products has 
translated into an annual loss of over $300 million in corn exports for 
U.S. farmers. More disturbing is the recent trend in Africa, where 
several nations have rejected U.S. food aid because the shipments 
contained biotech corn. This based solely on the fear that EU countries 
will not accept their food exports if genetically modified seeds spread 
to domestic crops.
  These actions by our trading partners have consequences. U.S. farmers 
are already beginning to plant more non-biotech seeds. This trend will 
increase farmers' cost of production as well as increase the damage 
from harmful insects. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
has recently approved a corn technology that will allow the 
commercialization of the first corn designed to control rootworm--a 
pest that costs U.S. farmers approximately $1 billion in lost revenue 
per year. It is absurd to think that farmers would not be able to take 
advantage of this technology.
  Clearly, the long-term impact of these policies could be disastrous 
for U.S. farmers in terms of competitiveness and the ability to provide 
food for the world's population. Addressing world hunger is 
particularly critical when approximately 800 million people are 
malnourished in the developing world, and another 100 million go hungry 
each day. Biotechnology is the answer to this pressing problem. Farmers 
can produce better yields through drought-tolerant varieties, which are 
rich in nutrients and more resistant to insects and weeds, while those 
in need reap the benefits.
  As you can see, halting or even slowing down the development of this 
technology could have dire consequences for countries where populations 
are growing rapidly and all arable land is already under cultivation. 
Official WTO action will send a clear and convincing message to the 
world that prohibitive policies on biotechnology which are not based on 
sound science are illegal.
  Hopefully, the WTO will act quickly to resolve the Administration's 
case on behalf of American farmers. There's no doubt that the U.S. and 
American agriculture go into this battle with the facts on our side. We 
simply cannot allow the free trade of our agriculture products to be 
restricted by this unfair and unjust moratorium. After all, the price 
of inaction is one we can no longer afford to pay.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure not 
because I wish to either support or oppose genetically-modified 
products. Clearly the production and consumption of these products is a 
matter for producers and consumers to decide for themselves.
  I oppose this bill because at its core it is government 
intervention--both in our own

[[Page 14275]]

markets and in the affairs of foreign independent nations. Whether 
European governments decide to purchase American products should not be 
a matter for the U.S. Congress to decide. It is a matter for European 
governments and the citizens of European Union member countries. While 
it may be true that the European Union acts irrationally in blocking 
the import of genetically-modified products, the matter is one for 
European citizens to decide.
  Also, this legislation praises U.S. efforts to use the World Trade 
Organization to force open European markets to genetically-modified 
products. The WTO is an unelected world bureaucracy seeking to 
undermine the sovereignty of nations and peoples. It has nothing to do 
with free trade and everything to do with government- and bureaucrat-
managed trade. Just as it is unacceptable when the WTO demands--at the 
behest of foreign governments--that the United States government raise 
taxes and otherwise alter the practices of American private enterprise, 
it is likewise unacceptable when the WTO makes such demands to others 
on behalf of the United States. This is not free trade.
  Genetically-modified agriculture products may well be the wave of the 
future. They may provide food for the world's populations and 
contribute to the eradication of disease. That is something we 
certainly hope for and for which we will all applaud should it prove to 
be the case. But, again, this legislation is not about that. That is 
why I must oppose this bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in qualified support of this measure.
  I am a proponent of genetically modified (GM) food, and firmly 
believe that its continued implementation and use provides a number of 
important benefits for the American farmer and worldwide consumers. 
Furthermore, I believe we are legally correct and justified in asking 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) to impose penalties on the EU for 
maintaining a moratorium on import permits for genetically modified 
crops in violation of its rules.
  However, I fear that our government's efforts will have the 
unintended consequence of wreaking havoc on the current WTO trade 
discussions. As we all know, the U.S. farmer would benefit much more 
if, in the current Doha Round of the WTO, the EU nations agreed to 
slash the generous agriculture subsidy assistance they provide their 
farmers.
  According to a recent Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD), an international organization that seeks to help 
governments tackle the economic, social, and governance challenges of a 
globalized economy, in 2002, the EU provided $112.6 billion in 
agricultural subsidies to their farmers. This amount totals 
approximately 1.3 percent of the EU GDP. Compare this staggering number 
with that of the United States, which generously provided in 2002 $90.3 
billion (0.9 percent of our GDP) to farmers in the form of agricultural 
subsidies, and you can easily see why reform of domestic agricultural 
policy and worldwide agricultural trade liberalization is much needed.
  In addition to fighting this important fight on GM foods today, the 
Administration and Congress need to hold the Europeans' feet to the 
fire on reforming their domestic agriculture policy and making their 
country more open to imported goods. The Doha Round was devised to 
accomplish these two objectives.
  Moreover, the U.S.'s policy on GM foods must not just single out 
Europe. In an article, which appeared in yesterday's The Wall Street 
Journal, many U.S. soybean traders are accusing the Chinese of impeding 
soybean imports due to the failure of various inspection permits. The 
article continues by stating, ``China last week announced it will 
extend to April 20, 2004, strict regulations on crops containing 
genetically modified organisms that had been set to expire September 
20th.''
  Thus, the question that needs to be asked--Is China moving toward 
closing its borders in perpetuity on import permits for genetically 
modified crops? Will the U.S. government file a similar petition 
against the Chinese government? If so, when? If not, why not? After 
all, under commitments China made when it became a member of the WTO in 
December 2001, it must open its market to agricultural products.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution and encourage my 
colleagues to do likewise--but I suggest more substantive work be done 
to reform domestic agricultural policy and worldwide agricultural trade 
liberalization policies that currently stand in the way of 
sustainability and prosperity of our farmers.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 252. 
This important resolution expresses the House of Representatives' 
supports for American efforts within the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
to end the European Union's unfair trade practices regarding 
agriculture biotechnology. These trade practices are protectionist and 
discriminatory, and have been in place the past five years.
  In 2001, the United States and other industrialized countries 
produced almost 109 million acres of genetically modified foods. These 
foods are modified, safely, to reduce the application of pesticides, 
reduce soil erosion and create an environment more hospitable to 
wildlife. These foods are resilient and can grow in areas often 
inhospitable to agriculture. Genetically modified foods hold great 
promise in alleviating hunger in developing areas of the world.
  The European Union, acting without scientific basis, enacted a 
moratorium on genetically modified foods in October 1998. Since then, 
this moratorium has blocked more than $300 million annually in American 
corn exports to countries in the European Union. This action has had a 
damaging effect on agricultural exports from the United States, 
particularly from Iowa.
  Allow me to describe the devastating effect this action has had on 
many developing countries in Africa. Earlier this year, I traveled to 
several nations in sub-Saharan Africa. I met people trying to help 
themselves with their own hard work, and through the humanitarian 
efforts of the United States and other nations. Far too many people in 
Africa depend on food from other countries, and far too many are 
starving. Genetically modified food could withstand the intolerant 
climate and harsh growing landscapes common in the area. But because of 
fear about future exports to Europe, these African nations have held 
back from a wonderful opportunity to promote agriculture in their own 
nations. Just last year, humanitarian food aid sent to Africa from the 
United States was rejected. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong.
  Iowa is America's second-largest agriculture exporter, sending $3.2 
billion worth of commodities and value-added products overseas. There 
is much promise in using biotechnology to change to the face of 
agriculture. Biotechnology is now being researched to create custom-
made pharmaceuticals and renewable ingredients for industrial use. The 
cities of Waterloo and Davenport in my district are working to make 
value-added agriculture the driving force of their economic growth. 
They are making significant investments to reach this end. It is clear 
that continued research and production is needed to make these 
investments pay off for these communities and the rest of the Midwest.
  Mr. Speaker, we took a tremendous step forward by granting the 
President trade promotion authority. As the U.S. begins to negotiate 
trade agreements with this authority, it is critical we demonstrate 
that protectionist and discriminatory practices, like those used by the 
EU, will not be tolerated. the U.S. must now take further action within 
the WTO. I applaud the President and the U.S. Trade Representative's 
interest in taking action on this critical issue now. Accordingly, I 
urge passage of this resolution supporting Administration efforts 
through the WTO.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I cautiously approach my colleagues' 
zealous concern about the European Union's long-standing moratorium on 
agriculture and biotech products. The World Trade Organization 
agreement does recognize that countries are entitled to regulate crops 
and food products to protect health and the environment. However, WTO 
members must have sufficient evidence for their regulations and must 
operate approval procedures without ``undue delay.'' The EU's current 
moratorium lacks sufficient justification and at 5 years has reached a 
point of undue delay.
  At the same time, consumers have a right to know what they are eating 
and the food industry should remain transparent and accountable. I 
fully support labeling and a comprehensive paper trail that would 
ensure that consumers are aware when they are purchasing genetically 
modified ingredients.
  I am more cautious than the Bush administration on this issue, but 
also feel the European Union's moratorium is extreme. I support this 
resolution in the spirit of fair trade, but urge my colleagues and the 
administration to not interfere with consumer awareness to be gained by 
labeling and industry transparency.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution, House Resolution 252, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 14276]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________