Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. I am to be followed by my distinguished ranking member, Senator Stabenow.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about a topic and a bipartisan bill that will affect what consumers pay for their food, the grave threats of worldwide malnutrition and hunger, and the future of every farmer, every grower, and the future of every rancher in America. That topic is agriculture biotechnology.

We have all heard about our growing global population, currently at 7 billion and estimated to reach over 9.6 billion in the next few decades. Tonight, 1 in 9 people--that is roughly 800 million people-- worldwide will go to bed hungry. Around the world, impoverished regions are facing increased challenges in feeding their people. Show me a nation that cannot feed itself, and I will show you a nation in chaos. Goodness knows, we have had enough of that.

We have seen too many examples in recent years where shortfalls in grain and other food items or increases in prices at the consumer level have helped to trigger outbreaks of civil unrest and protests in places such as the Middle East and Africa. In light of these global security threats, today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable food to meet the demands at home and around the globe. At the same time, farmers are facing increased challenges to their production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain weather, to be sure, and pest and disease issues. However, over the past 20 years, agriculture biotechnology has become an invaluable tool in ensuring the success of the American farmer in meeting the challenge of increasing yield in a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner.

For years now, the United States has proven that American agriculture plays a pivotal role in addressing food shortfalls around the world. We must continue to consider new and innovative ways to get ahead of the growing population and production challenges. In addressing these issues, we must continue to be guided by the best available science, research, and innovation.

If my colleagues have heard any of my previous remarks on this topic, they have heard me say time and again that biotechnology products are safe. My colleagues don't have to take my word for it. The Agriculture Committee held a hearing late last year where all three agencies in charge of reviewing biotechnology testified before our members. Over and over again, the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA told us that these products are safe--that they are safe for the environment, safe for other plants, and certainly safe for our food supply. Since that hearing, the U.S. Government reinforced their decisions on the safety of these products.

Last November, the FDA took several steps, based on sound science, regarding food that is produced from biotech plants, including issuing final guidance for manufacturers who wish to voluntarily label their products as containing ingredients from biotech or exclusively nonbiotech plants. More importantly, the Food and Drug Administration denied a petition that would have required the mandatory on-package labeling of biotech foods. The FDA maintained that evidence was not provided for the agency to put such a requirement in place because there is no health safety or nutritional difference between biotech crops and their nonbiotech varieties.

A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences ``found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops.''

Just last week, 110 Nobel laureates sent an open letter to the leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations, and all governments around the world in support of agriculture biotechnology, and particularly in support of golden rice. Golden rice has the potential--has had the potential and has the potential--to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency, particularly among the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia. These world-renowned scientists noted that ``scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer, than those derived from any other method of production.''

Furthermore, the laureates said:

There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.

There has been a lot of discussion about agriculture biotechnology lately, and that is a good thing. We should be talking about our food. We should be talking about our farmers and producers, and we should be talking to consumers. It is important to have an honest discussion and an open exchange of dialogue. After all, that is what we do in the Senate--discuss difficult issues, craft solutions, and finally vote in the best interests of our constituents.

The difficult issue for us to address is what to do about the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that soon will wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce of agriculture and food products in every supermarket and every grocery store up and down every Main Street. That is what this discussion should be about. It is not about safety or health or nutrition; it is all about marketing. If we don't act today, what we will face is a handful of States that have chosen to enact labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with health, safety, or nutrition.

Unfortunately, the impact of those State decisions will be felt across the country and around the globe. Those decisions impact the farmers who would be pressured to grow less efficient crops so manufacturers could avoid these demonizing labels. Those labeling laws will impact distributors who have to spend more money to sort different labels for different States. Those labeling laws will ultimately impact consumers, who will suffer from much higher priced food. When on- package labels force manufacturers to reformulate food products, our farmers will have limited biotechnology options available. This will result in less food available to the many mouths in our troubled and hungry world.

It is not manufacturers who pay the ultimate price; it is the consumer--at home and around the globe--who will bear this burden, unless we act today.

I am proud of the critical role the Department of Agriculture has played and will continue to play in combating global hunger. Farmers and ranchers in Kansas, Michigan, and all across this country have been and are committed to continue to doing their part. And those of us who represent them in the U.S. Senate should do our part to stand up in defense of sound science and innovation. We should stand up to ensure that our farmers and ranchers have access to agriculture biotechnology and other tools to address these global challenges.

The proposal put forth by my distinguished ranking member Senator Stabenow and me provides that defense of our food system and our farmers and ranchers, while at the same time providing a reasonable solution to consumer demand for more information. That is what the bill does.

Our amendment strikes a careful balance. It certainly is not perfect from my perspective. It is not the best possible bill, but it is the best bill possible under these difficult circumstances we find ourselves in today. That is why, I say to my colleagues, it is supported by a broad coalition of well over 1,000 food and agriculture industries, and that sets a record in the Senate Agriculture Committee. They include the American Farm Bureau Federation, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just to name a few.

I urge my colleagues to not merely support cloture on a bill this afternoon but to support your broad range of constituents who benefit from its passage.

Passing this bill benefits farmers and ranchers by providing a mechanism for disclosure that educates rather than denigrates their technology.

Passing this bill benefits manufacturers by providing a single national standard by which to be held accountable, rather than an unworkable system of many more State standards.

Finally, passing this bill benefits consumers by greatly increasing the amount of food information at their fingertips but does so in a way that provides cost-effective options to avoid devastating increases in the price of food.

Passing this bill is the responsible thing to do. It is time for us to act. I urge my colleagues to join us in doing just that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source