No. We thank you, Misters Easter, Kaplan, Miller, and Thompson. Thank you very much.

Would the Panel number 6 participants please come forward, Joel Nelsen, Jean-Mari Peltier and Bill Quarles.

Mr. Nelsen, when you're ready.

MR. NELSEN: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Joel Nelsen and as co-chair of the U.S. Citrus Science Council, I'm here today to offer the views of an entity that is virtually supported by the entire citrus industry in California and Arizona.

At the present time, our industry exports approximately $700 million of citrus every year. The sales are essential to the economic health of the industry. And the citrus industry is desirous of and committed to working with the USDA and USTR in order to increase our export sales.

Having said this, I want to focus on the SPS agreement and the U.S. activities pursuant to that. We can all agree that that agreement is a very ambitious undertaking. As a matter of fact, Secretary Glickman recently stated to an agricultural group that the dispute resolution process of the WTO is not working.

In those same comments, he also stated that sanitary and phytosanitary matters will be the biggest negotiating item on the agenda of the upcoming round of agricultural trade talks.

Yet, it's our understanding, based on a concern that the agreement might be weekend, we believe that some were considering, as a U.S. policy, not to ask for any changes in this next round. Well, given the recognition that things are not working as envisioned, we believe that that policy should be revisited. Our experience tells us that SPS issues have tremendous importance for the future of trade between the world's countries.

We believe vastly increased resources need to be dedicated to the interpretation and implementation of the SPS. Without such a dedication, the promise of SPS will never be realized. Without the necessary dedication, mistakes can and will be made, such as the introduction of exotic pests and diseases. This is extremely costly to the society of the United States of America.

SPS, as we all know, is essentially a framework for a new approach to sanitary and phytosanitary issues. All membered countries must address the interpretation and appropriate implementation of this framework.

Looking to our own activities domestically, we believe that first and foremost the Department of Agriculture must put in place essential procedures and regulations for the implementation of the agreement.

This omission has led to two problems, we believe. One, there's a lack of confidence within the U.S. grower community and with USDA as far as these rule-making procedures are considered. Two, because of this lack of confidence and the reaction from the grower community, it creates confusion with our trading partners. There's an action and a reaction that's unfortunately not necessarily positive.

Our lack of confidence at the grower level emanates from the significant increase in exotic pests and disease invasions and the outreach prior to the issuance of a trade proposal.

Other specific issues of concern to the U.S. Citrus Science Council are as follows. One, the terms pest free or disease free areas, areas of low pest or disease incidence. These terms have all become much more nebulous in the last few years. There needs to be more work to achieve worldwide agreement on the exact parameters and implications of those concepts.

We're concerned about the recent proposals issued by USDA that rely on systems' approaches. We do not believe the negotiators of the SPS nor Congress, when it enacted the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, ever intended the SPS to encourage the exportation of fresh produce from growing areas with populations of serious plant disease and/or pests.

Again, a mistake in any one of these two areas leads to significant business and consumer economic ramifications. I ask you just to witness the cost of eradicating cancer in Florida right now. What's going on with the introduction of the fire ants in the southwest, beetles in Chicago. All these -- and the list goes on with all these pests and diseases and unfortunately the costs continue to increase.

The SPS agreement also placed extraordinary importance on and confidence in a new analytical tool, known as risk assessment. It appears to us that the United States is trying to lead the world effort in the use of this tool. We have no problem with this, but however we believe a tremendous amount of scientific and analytical work must be done before this tool can be applied to growing situations where a plant disease exists. The international community must establish standards for the preparation of a risk assessment.

The development of standards, criteria, methodologies, et cetera could eliminate the referral of so many matters to the dispute resolution process that the Secretary has expressed concern about.

In closing, we believe contentious areas exist between domestic producers and government. Subsequently, our government and our trading partners as a result. Many of these issues overlap. It's important that within the boundaries of the United States, we achieve agreement on rule-making procedures, science criteria, et cetera and then take these agreements and work with our trading partners and achieve the ultimate goal that we all want, increased and harmonious trade relations.

Thank you.