43 



Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Pomeroy. 



Mr. Pomeroy. No questions. 



Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Volkmer. 



Mr. Volkmer. No questions. 



Mr. Stenholm. Now we are talking basically about protecting 

 the breeder of a new variety or an established variety that is cov- 

 ered under the Plant Variety Protection Act, correct? Where do 

 seed cleaners, treaters fit in that equation? 



Let's say that I am in the business of providing a service of 

 cleaning and treating seed. Where do I fit? 



Mr. Schmidt. If I may, the seed cleaner is still dependent on the 

 certificate holder. It is the certificate holder who is responsible. His 

 seed is out there if it is violated through the PVPA. 



Mr. Stenholm. Is there any problem in the industry regarding 

 seed cleaners and how they are dealing with whatever payments 

 or certificates or royalties or whatever we call them? 



Mr. Schmidt. That is provided in the law as it is presently writ- 

 ten. 



Mr. Stenholm. Is there a problem with the law as presently 

 written concerning those who are in the commercial business of 

 providing a service of cleaning, treating, and sacking seed for pur- 

 poses of commercial sales by variety? 



Mr. Schmidt. No. 



Mr. Stenholm. There is not? So whatever royalties, charges, etc., 

 they are being paid and collected and there is no problem? 



Mr. Schmidt. Correct. 



Mr. Strouts. With AgriPro, my contract states that, as the grow- 

 er, it is my responsibility to pay those royalties, and the seed clean- 

 er is not involved in that at all. I should say seed conditioner. In 

 Kansas, the seed conditioners, of course, are licensed and certified 

 by the Kansas Crop Improvement Association, so they would be- 

 come involved, but they do not really assume the responsibility. It 

 is up to the grower. 



Mr. Stenholm. But if you have a situation in which the cleaner, 

 treater, et cetera, is also in the sales business, then they would be 

 in the same position you are in, the seed company. 



Mr. Strouts. To me, it still falls back on the grower to see that 

 the royalties are paid and to see that the seed is what it is sup- 

 posed to be. 



Mr. Stenholm. All right, I am a grower. I am growing variety 

 x. I am doing it on contract for someone else, a cleaner/treater. 

 They take the seed from me. They pay me a little bit of a bonus 

 for growing it. It goes in and then it is sacked and sold as variety 

 x by company x. 



That is not the breeder of the seed. Who is responsible for seeing 

 that the breeder is, in fact, paid? Me, the grower or the treater/ 

 sacker under current law? 



I am asking for my own information. 



Mr. Strouts. My only comment is that in Kansas the seed condi- 

 tioner is not involved. 



Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Schmidt. 



Mr. Schmidt. Well, yes, because the conditioner conditions the 

 seed for someone else. He is not the breeder. He is not the certifi- 

 cate holder. So he conditions that seed, let's say, for a seed com- 



