42 



Mr. Allard. I would like to have a little explanation to me, from 

 the panel, how you go about enforcing this provision, were it to 

 pass. How do you go about measuring as to whether it is your own 

 variety that somebody else— can you do that? That somebody else 

 raised? Is there a genetic way of doing a tracer? Would you en- 

 lighten me a little bit on that? 



Mr. Schmidt. I will be happy to. 



Under the new technology, you can identify today and certainly 

 within very few years exactly through fingerprinting the difference 

 from one variety from the other. That is also necessary between 

 breeders to identify if that breeder has the same variety coming out 

 with a new variety. So there has to be some differences. So that 

 is definitely possible. 



But, on the other side, like every law, especially the PVPA 

 amendment here or the PVPA in general, it is the breeder who has 

 to police his own rights, and so it is certainly not the Government 

 or any other entity, but the possibility is there. 



Mr. Allard. He does that through a civil court action? 



Mr. Schmidt. I would assume. 



Mr. Allard. Is it very difficult to run these tests? 



Mr. Schmidt. No. 



Mr. Allard. Are they expensive? 



Mr. SCHMIDT. Not too expensive. It depends on what the situa- 

 tion is. 



Mr. Allard. Are we talking about a $1,000 or $10,000? 



Mr. Schmidt. Per test, less than that. 



Mr. STROUTS. If I may comment, it is my understanding that 

 these tests can determine wheat varieties according to the protein 

 analysis, and the figure I heard was roughly $100 to $150. 



I would agree with you, as I stated earlier, that, yes, the problem 

 is enforcement. Do we go around sampling everybody's drill box 

 and then ask them to prove the source of their seed? To me, that 

 is the problem. 



Mr. Allard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Inslee. 



Mr. Inslee. Mr. Clemons, perhaps this is clear to others, but are 

 folks suggesting that we change the statute as far as the definition 

 of incidental sales or are we talking just about report language? 



Mr. Keeling. We are advocating a change in the statute, yes. 

 Not to belittle report language, but we need to set out in a very 

 clear way that small amounts of sales are allowed and define what 

 that is, and we would believe that incidental should be defined in 

 a way that is acceptable to the seed companies as well as the farm- 

 ers, but it should be done statutorily. 



Mr. Inslee. Has language been proposed in that regard? 



Mr. KEELING. No, we have no particular language at this point. 



To be honest with you, I went to the same science class Gary 

 Mitchell did, maybe some of the members of the committee did, 

 also. But the real expertise in terms of defining that minimal level 

 of sales that is not a problem for the seed companies and also cre- 

 ates the needed help for the farmer really exists within the seed 

 companies, and so we need the political will for them to want to 

 help us on that somewhat. 



Mr. Inslee. Thank you. 



