MS. NAVE: Thank you. Can you hear me?

Good morning. My name is Kathleen Nave and I'm the president of the California Table Grape Commission. On behalf of the California Table Grape Commission and the industry, let me begin by thanking you for taking the time to be here today and to listen to our concerns. We're pleased to have the opportunity to share a few of the priorities of the table grape industry with you.

As you know, the table grape industry is represented by the California Table Grape Commission, which is a mandated organization, created by an Act of the State Legislature in 1968. The Legislature created the Commission out of a belief that the economic interests of the State of California and of its citizens are well served by a strong table grape industry. Ninety-seven percent of the fresh grapes grown in the United States are grown here in the heart of California.

The Commission's charge is to increase worldwide consumption of California table grapes worldwide. Since 1968, the industry has grown from one that produced about 20 million boxes of grapes on an annual basis to one that produces between 80 and 90 million boxes. As you know, table grapes are a high-value crop generating nearly a billion dollars in farm-gate revenue in 1997. And on average exports account for over 20 percent of the volume and 20 percent of the value.

This is a growing industry. We have new acres planted every year, new vineyards continuing to grow into production and exports are a critical part of the future of this industry.

We have three issues that we would ask that would be included in the U.S. negotiating priorities for the upcoming Seattle Round. They are maintaining the integrity of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, reducing excessive tariff levels and opening protective markets.

Our first concern deals with maintaining the integrity of the SPS agreement. As you all know, many of the barriers inhibiting the export of California table grapes are based on quarantine regulations. Obviously, we work hard to eliminate those barriers to help countries change regulations that are built on unscientific foundations. Nonetheless, we would encourage you to proceed with caution when considering reopening the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement.

From our perspective, opening that agreement for refinement presents more potential hazard than it presents potential benefit. It's critically important to the continued development of the world marketplace that decisions revolving around sanitary and phytosanitary rules are based on science. It's the only way member countries have a hope of evaluating the soundness of a regulation with any degree of objectivity.

We know that there have been some discussions of including other criteria in the SPS agreement. And whether you call them electoral sensitivities, consumer preferences or the precautionary principle, the result will be the same. Obviously, including such scientific non-objective criteria in the agreement would give members the flexibility to base their import requirements on something other than science. And that would be a giant step backwards. As from our perspective, it would eliminate a safety net that a strong, objective, science-based SPS agreement provides when and if technical discussions fail.

A good example of a strong -- of the importance of this agreement is the situation we're involved in currently with Taiwan, which I understand you'll hear more about later.

I see I'm out of time. We also would ask that you address tariff rates, especially in emerging markets. And actually, we believe that the Seattle round should end with member countries agreeing to negotiate from their lowest existing rates, whether that rate is a bound rate or an applied rate.

Thank you.