Hearing of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Is the Department of Agriculture Accounting for Costs to Farmers Caused by Genetically Engineered (GE) Plants?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on two important subjects, one clearly within the purview of this committee, one perhaps not within the purview of this committee but certainly worthwhile discussing here today.

I'm always pleased when the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform deals with the question of whether or not the administration is properly adhering to laws passed by the Congress and regulations often created by the administration or passed the administration themselves. Clearly today, that is the focus of this hearing.

I appreciate the fact that genetically modified plants have and continue to be a lively discussion around the world. When I was first elected to Congress in the year 2000, one of the first trips I took was to Europe only -- and to discover that the Europeans were not just objecting to GMOs in Europe but actually objecting to the United States giving away free food in Africa if it was the product of the GMOs. I found that amazing then; I find it amazing now. I believe that in fact we must try to find better crops for better feeding of the people of the world, and a reduction in erosion and other problems caused by conventional plants.

I might note that contamination is not limited to one crop versus another. In my own home in California, we have been struggling for decades with the glassy-winged sharpshooter, which would not be passing on Pierce's Disease for our wine industry and grapes and raisins if it were not for the fact that we're also a citrus producer. They -- the glassy-winged sharpshooter lives in mass quantities without significant damage to oranges, so they make a perfect breeding ground. Unfortunately, oranges and our grapevines often grow close together, and we have been struggling trying to find a way to have those two crops, clearly historic crops, but crops not be damaged by their co-location.

Additionally, California has often been unfairly told by the Japanese that in fact our long grain rice or even California short grain is somehow indigestible by the Japanese, clearly a protectionist maneuver and not a legitimate complaint about the quality of what we grow in California.

Having said that, we also know that many naysayers suggest the world is running out of space to put the world's -- to produce the world's food supply. I agree that if we cannot get past the 6 billion-plus today and we get to 12 billion, we will have to produce more food in less space. So then why would anyone argue against GM advancements that promise increased yield per acre?

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, the ISAAA, shows that in 2006 the number of hectares globally cultivated with GM crops increased by 12 million hectares. More importantly, that's double the amount of food produced on those same hectares.

Many argue that pesticides harm our health; I agree. If you believe this, you must ask the question of why would you not want to have improved crops that need less pesticides? The National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, the NCFAP, concludes in 2004 alone biotechnology in the U.S. reduced pesticides -- pesticide use by 34 percent.

If soil and water conservation is of concern to you, then how could you argue against biotech crops which reduce soil erosion and reduce water storage and treatment needs? The Conservation Technology Information Center reports an increase of no-till acreage farmland due to biotech agriculture reduces soil erosion by 1 billion tons per year. And I might note that Speaker Pelosi used federal funds allocated to the House of Representatives to buy carbon credits that were produced by no-till agriculture.

If you believe the growing trade deficit is a problem worth addressing, then how can you argue that curtailing the agriculture community's ability to increase exports somehow serves that purpose? Ag Secretary Ed Schafer announced this week that exports are forecasted to reach a record $104 billion in fiscal year 2008, up ($)10 billion from November's forecast and ($)19 billion from 2007.

Today, Don Cameron, a California grower, will tell us exactly how he is able to balance conventional, organic and biotech crops, reaping economic and environmental benefits for all. Mr. Cameron is proof that the use of these new technologies properly can in fact allow them to harmoniously work together.

There is a risk. I am here today to say that the government has an obligation to oversee that risk, to constantly monitor it because in fact our food supply is too important not to have the USDA and other federal agencies adhering to acts of Congress and their own regulations.

So, Mr. Chairman, I look very much forward to this oversight hearing because I do believe that Congress has an absolute oversight responsibility, and I congratulate you for focusing on that today.

I yield back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source