Tax Refund Statute of Limitation Extension Act

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.

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

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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.