33 



if you as a farmer, instead of conditioning your own seed, took it 

 to someone else. 



The Senate language, we believe, is an improvement. It basically 

 says it is not a violation if you are doing things that are consistent 

 with other parts of the act. But in our statement we have proposed 

 some language that we believe would clarify that more completely 

 and would ask the committee to take a look at that. 



We also have concerns about the broken contract issue and be- 

 lieve that, in fact, the Senate bill, although it makes some clarifica- 

 tions in that area, still leaves it where the producer could be left 

 holding the bag, so to speak, if, in fact, the contract is broken. 



Now for the final issue — and we appreciate the fact that the bill 

 does continue to allow farmers to save seed for their own use. We 

 believe, however, that regardless of what form this bill is passed 

 in, incidental sales between farmers, between neighbors will con- 

 tinue to take place. It is not our intent to protect any farmer who 

 is actively competing with the seed companies. 



We strongly believe that both the seed companies and the farm- 

 ers have both been put at a very awkward and untenable situation 

 by the ambiguity of the current law. We believe that a bright line 

 standard needs to be introduced. We do not, however, believe that 

 that bright line standard ought to be set at zero amount of allowed 

 sales. 



We believe that a farmer ought to be able to save enough seed 

 to plant his own holdings, probably twice so in the case of this — 

 Mr. Roberts would appreciate this. If you are hailed out on your 

 wheat, you would have a chance to go back on it with your own 

 seed that you saved. 



The situation will evolve where a farmer saves what we believe 

 to be an incidental amount — which we understand is difficult to de- 

 fine. We are ready to work with the committee and with the other 

 members at this table to try to define that amount. Where a farmer 

 is left with that small amount of seed that has been conditioned, 

 he has no options of anything to do with that seed except to pos- 

 sibly save it for another year where it runs the risk of not being 

 as good, also of contaminating other seed or seed sources due to its 

 treatment. So we believe that the farmer ought to have the ability 

 to put that seed back into commerce by selling it to a neighbor. 



So one of the ideas that we have talked about would be, basi- 

 cally, an automatic licensing provision where, for small amounts of 

 sales — and I want to make it very clear we are looking at ex- 

 tremely small amounts incidental to any business activity the 

 farmer might take, strictly to allow him to get rid of that seed 

 where he would, upon notifying the seed company of his intent, re- 

 ceive effectively an automatic license to dispose of that small 

 amount of seed. 



The quid pro quo there is that the seed company knows of the 

 farmer's activity, knows of the amounts of the sales, knows of the 

 timing of these sales and the place he sells and the type of variety. 

 If there is any bag of seed moving out there for which a farmer has 

 not notified the seed company, he would be in violation of the act 

 regardless of the amount of seed that he was selling. 



So we believe that it is a balanced approach. It acknowledges the 

 fact that the farmer we wish to protect is not competing with the 



