28 



So I am uncomfortable with the idea we are taking information 

 from a relatively small area and simply applying this to all-comers, 

 in all areas, when we know for sure the comparable kinds of infor- 

 mation has not been obtained for the entire eastern seaboard and 

 most of the South. 



Now, nothing yet has been said about these logs and other prod- 

 ucts serving as passive carriers for agricultural pests, but I can as- 

 sure you places like Siberia and other localities have plants that 

 are directly related to crops grown in the Northwest, hazel, cane 

 berries, for example. The possibility of passive introduction is high. 



Those from California would certainly, in California, know Mon- 

 terey, California, the beautiful trees right there, they are Monterey 

 pines. The species is restricted naturally to three, very small areas. 

 Should diseases or pests be brought in on pines that are being 

 brought in from the Southern Hemisphere, those natural trees cer- 

 tainly would be at risk. 



Finally, we are trying to assure that NAFTA regulations have 

 these agreements, and something is said there about the border 

 States. With my colleague from Mexico, we drafted a publication, 

 the last one in the green booklet you have received, dealing with 

 the potential risks of raw log importation into Mexico. I can assure 

 you they are very concerned because they have a broader environ- 

 mental spectrum than we do in the United States. Some pests that 

 have come into Mexico, moved North, and spread throughout west- 

 ern North America, the Russian wheat aphid, for example. The re- 

 verse case is true for pests from Canada. 



While these borders have similarities on both sides, we do have 

 to act as a group to address these problems. The same would be 

 true of course as we get into the GATT proposals. 



Now, in closing, I would just like to comment on the mitigation 

 protocols. I will go through them top to bottom. There are six and 

 many of these have been discussed so I will only touch on them. 



Inspection. The ship that came into Coos Bay had 26,000 logs on 

 it. Some of the beetles that might be found in the middle of the logs 

 that would emerge have an exit hole of about one-hundreth of an 

 inch. There is simply no way an individual can inspect all those 

 logs, so indeed they subsample, as has been described earlier on 

 how this occurs. They take a couple of samples, send them to the 

 lab for examination and release the logs as they released these to 

 the mills. They may find out some months later what the past 

 problems might have been. Obviously, other shipments could have 

 come in at the same time. 



The idea of debarking is good, but when the so-called test ship- 

 ments arrived, and I say so-called simply because one wonders if 

 you have to test whether a ship can carry logs in the first place, 

 they could have looked at the logs at the point of origin to deter- 

 mine if there were organisms in there. But those logs that came 

 in from New Zealand, the early test shipments that had been de- 

 barked, the people who went and examined them found living in- 

 sects underneath the remnants of the bark on the logs. Thus the 

 concern about debarking. 



The surface spraying of pesticides was of concern. When I met 

 with the Oregon AFL-CIO, they were concerned about the poten- 

 tial health risks that might be associated with handling logs that 



