A resolution expressing the support of the Senate of United States efforts in the World Trade Organization to end the unwarranted moratorium imposed by the European Union on the approval of agricultural biotechnology products.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 154 regarding the European Union action against agricultural biotechnology, a resolution submitted earlier today by me and Senators Talent, Lincoln, Lugar, and Baucus. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I understand how this place works. We knew there was to be an objection. But we have submitted a resolution which will be referred to committee because it is a matter of great importance. While apparently 99 Senators did not have an objection, we will have an opportunity when this matter is reported out of the appropriate committee to deal with what I think is a very serious issue.

This resolution before us today expresses strong support for President Bush's decision to stand up for our trade rights before the World Trade Organization. The action taken by our President is right on principle, right on law, right on science, and it is morally right.

Two years ago, the European Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, told a news conference the following:

We have already waited too long to act. The moratorium is

illegal and not justified. The value of biotechnology is

poorly appreciated in Europe and there's a risk the

biotechnology industry will not develop.

In short, we could not have said it better. We appreciate the Commissioner's courage to be so candid.

Since reason has not prevailed in Europe, it is time for our overtaxed patience to give way to the need to exercise our rights before the World Trade Organization. If the Europeans had been satisfied to exist as a ``plant technology free zone'' without aggressively attempting to influence other nations, this action would not have become as imperative as it is.

Mr. President, this European ban on plant biotechnology is a lesson about the serious harm that can come in the form of unintended consequences. Too-clever politicians in Europe, coupled with the hysterical anticommercial activists, decided they could whip their public into a frenzy and shield the European Union producers from U.S. competition by suggesting that the new technology is not safe.

Even perhaps more venal--if that is possible--certain leftwing organizations decided they could raise fears and cause unfounded scares in the public and raise money through solicitations to fund their own salaries by spreading lies about the food that we in the United States eat every day.

But now that the European Union politicians are listening to their scientists and realize that the technology is safe, they say they cannot accept it because their public is against it. In other words, they now claim to be hostage to the misinformation they created and, indeed, fostered.

Consequently, we now have a major trade infraction. Our farmers have lost $300 million a year in corn exports. The European public doubts the credibility of their science community. European investment in new plant science is in sharp decline. Their farmers do not have access to new technology. Most importantly, world-renowned scientists are leaving the European Union.

They are coming to Missouri, where our leading scientists, such as Dr. Roger Beachy and Dr. Peter Raven, are hiring them and providing them a refuge where they can practice their science free from the Luddite hysteria or ``Eurosclerosis'' from which they came.

But most tragically--most tragically--the countries in the developing world have been frightened into refusing to feed their starving people the food we have sent them--which is food we eat--because they fear the hysterical European rejection is more serious than death by starvation. We have sent food, humanitarian efforts, to aid and keep these people alive. Unfortunately, their leaders have been frightened by Europeans who say they will never import from them again.

Regrettably, I would say that Europe's fastest-growing exports are hysteria and underappreciated plant scientists. We would like Europe to join us in our efforts to help feed the hungry in the world, not scare the world into needless, wanton starvation.

I do not believe this is where the Europeans wanted to be when they started this nonsense but this is where it has predictably taken them.

This technology was developed, studied, tested, reviewed, approved, planted on several hundred million acres over 7 years, rereviewed and reapproved,

using a strict and science-based system. We are basing our review on science and on experience--lots of experience.

All of us in America today are eating the food that has been improved by genetic modification. We recognize that no technology will ever be 100-percent safe. We must regulate this and other technologies aggressively and thoroughly and scientifically. But this has been the most scrutinized new food technology of our age--or any age--and it has been planted on several hundred million acres around the world for many years. The naysayers still have not identified a single stomachache coming from biotechnology, despite their desperate search.

Our findings are not unique in the world. The case we have taken against the EU is joined by the Governments of Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Uruguay.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences completed a report that ``emphasized it was not aware of any evidence suggesting foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.''

I can list those which agree with us: the World Health Organization, France's Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the French Academy of Medicine, the Royal Society of London, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and many others.

Twenty Nobel laureates, including Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as ``the father of the Green revolution,'' with whom I spoke earlier this week on this subject, has come out in strong support. All of the major U.S. scientific societies are behind this technology. Dr. Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and a trained biologist, said directly:

I believe we are entering an era now where pagan beliefs

and junk science are influencing public policy. GM foods and

forestry are both good examples where policy is being

influenced by arguments that have no basis in factor logic.

The scientific consensus on this matter is overwhelming. In this country, farmers, scientists, regulators, courts, shareholders, elected officials, editorial boards, and consumers have all ratified the product and process and future of biotechnology in their own ways. For all practical purposes, it is a settled issue, and remains so.

In my office last week I had a South African cotton farmer who said that new technology in a seed has changed his life. He now has a harvest. He produces profitably. He has a savings account. And now all his neighbors are using that technology.

U.S. agriculture continues to be on the forefront of the application of modern science. In 1940, it took one farmer to feed 19 people. Now one farmer feeds 129 people. But tragically, 800 million children in the world remain hungry. New applications of biotechnology in the U.S. have increased crop yields by 4 billion pounds, saved growers $1.2 billion, and reduced pesticide use by 46 million pounds in the year 2001 alone.

If wealthy citizens in Europe want to shop at trendy expensive food boutiques, that is their right, but their government should not be preventing the public from choosing their diet, and it most certainly should not be discouraging the developing world from trying to eat well to grow and live a better life.

I am very proud of the work President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick, Administrator Natsios, Under Secretary Larson, Ambassador Hall, and many others have done to preserve the viability of this new technology. The EU has made agreements with us to abide by rules they are now flagrantly ignoring. These promises should be kept.

I appreciate the cosponsors of this resolution, the support of farm groups, including the National Corn Growers, Missouri Farm Bureau, and Missouri Soybean Association.

The best arguments on behalf of this are contained in Wednesday's article in the Wall Street Journal by U.S. trade ambassador, Robert Zoellick. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

I join with many of my colleagues in commending the President and his team as they go to Europe aggressively to press their case before the G-8 meeting in France next week.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator

Bunning be added as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. President, I spoke on this last night, and my friend and colleague from Missouri has covered the ground well, but I wish to say a couple things that I think are important to emphasize.

The first is, it is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone around the world that there is no reason, other than market protection, not to permit a biotech product into Europe. It is not bad for the environment. It is good for the environment.

In 2001 alone, biotechnology reduced the application of pesticides by 46 million pounds in addition to reducing soil erosion and creating an environment more hospitable to wildlife.

It would be good for the environment of Europe and the world to allow a biotech product there. It would be good for them, frankly, to start using it in raising their own product.

It is also increasingly obvious that there is no safety hazard. Practically everybody in America has eaten biotech corn or product made from biotech soybeans. There has not been a single case or suspicion of anybody being hurt by it. And, of course, there would not be because producers have been adjusting plant genetics for decades and decades and decades. This is just a new way of doing a very old and a time- honored thing that is very important to the production of the agriculture and to the advancement of human welfare.

I congratulate the administration on filing this WTO action. It is, if anything, overdue. I congratulate my friend and colleague for his comments. I hope the Senate can get behind the resolution just as quickly as possible and support the administration in this effort.

I know the support for biotech is bipartisan in this Chamber. I believe very strongly that it is overwhelming. I know we have tried to do this quickly this week, and maybe too quickly. Maybe we will not get it done today but I hope we can get it done soon and the Senate can go on record.

I close by saying, it is not just a question anymore of fairness and fair trade and the truth prevailing--as important as all those issues are. It is a question of hunger in the world. To me, the turning point was when the European Union countries not only refused to take the biotech product themselves, which I don't even think is defensible, but then they began trying to convince African countries that are in danger of famine to turn down shipments of safe, nutritious U.S. humanitarian biotech food aid.

This is now a question of trying to get food to people who are starving. That is too much, even for the European Union. I think it is time we said it. That is the point of this WTO action. That is the point of our resolution. That is the reason my colleague from Missouri has spoken on this important issue late at the end of this week. That is the reason I wanted to come down to the floor and join him in his comments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I begin, I should note my good friend, the senior Senator from Missouri, is on the floor. He had to put a unanimous consent request earlier, knowing that under the procedures we follow, it would be objected to by the senior Senator from West Virginia.

I will tell my friend from Missouri that in my 29 years here, I have never heard an objection so eloquently stated as was stated by the senior Senator from West Virginia. I think of the number of times we all make these requests, and most of the time unanimous consent requests are granted, as the Senator knows. For example, he recently made one allowing the junior Senator to speak and for me to follow. I can't help but think it would be nice if sometimes it wouldn't get so rancorous around here, if we could hear more of the words of Senator Byrd in this regard. He included a history, geography and literature lesson, all in a simple ``I object.'' It makes life better.

I wish my friend from Missouri a good break, as I do my friend, the distinguished Presiding Officer. He will soon, I am sure, be heading to New Hampshire, as I will to Vermont.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I object to the request made by my good friend from Missouri, that land from which Old Crumb, that great hunting dog, came. I believe it is Warrensburg, MO, where that statue stands today, the statute of Old Crumb, that great hunting dog.

But I must on this occasion object. I do it at the behest of another Senator. I assure the distinguished Senator that I bear no ill will toward him, certainly. But, on this occasion, I have promised that I would object, and I do object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 154, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the matter be printed in the Record.