MmIm 



Washington Mm Idaho Sod Amocutiom 



WASHINGTON STATB CH3T iMMOVBMBHT AMO Q l TW 

 WASHINGTON ST ATI DsrABtMINT Of AGUCUUTVM 

 WASHINGTON AGUCULTU*AL M W A fU C*NT« 

 WASHINGTON COOT»ATTri BXTINSSON SBTO 



83 



Washington Seed Council 



May 19. 1994 



Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, C h ai rm a n 

 Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition 

 Room 1301, Longworth House Office Building 

 Washington, D.C. 20515 



Re: RR. 2927 



Plant Variety Protection Act Amendments of 1993 



Dear Congressman Stenholm: 



We wish to thank you and your committee for the opportunity to offer our comments for your 

 consideration at the scheduled hearing on RR. 2927 at 2:00 p.m.. May 24. 



H.R. 2927 is of great importance to our nation's agriculture, and especially important to 

 Washington State's seed industry, as well as the plant breeding community. Washington's seed 

 industry is unique in its ability to produce and is commercially producing some 83 kinds of top of 

 the line seeds. The seed producer (farmer) must use the latest techniques and information available 

 to successfully compete in both domestic and export markets. Those markets are highly 

 competitive, specifically on price, since much imported seeds come from third world nations 

 and/or nations which subsidize many of the seeds coming into the U.S. 



All Washington seed producers find themselves facing a constant escalation of production costs. 

 The most onerous of those inputs are; labor, taxes, tools (fertilizer and chemicals), equipment and, 

 on many crops, pollinators, causing the producer to borrow operating capital. Any lending agency 

 looks for security and the cash flow schedule, before lending. For decades-up to the past two- 

 three years-lending institutions accepted the contract terms at face value. However, now due to 

 the rapid escalation of new? PVP varieties and the inability or refusal by the breeder/contractor to 

 meet the contract payment terms, lending agencies have become more wary and require additional 

 security, even to the point of refusing loans. Just a couple "bad apples' can ruin the whole box! 



It is sad and discouraging to see your friend and neighbor selling his equipment and farm, when he 

 has produced a quality crop, delivered it to the conditioner and has a certificate stating contents and 

 quality, which meet all terms of the contract yet the breeder/contractor refuses to pay. Not only 

 does he refuse to pay, but he prevents the grower from marketing the seed as the variety produced 

 because it is a PVP variety 1 1 



We see RR. 2927 having the possibility of correcting this inequity without effecting in any way, 

 the vast majority of the breeder/contractor certificate holders. We urge you to consider and adopt 

 that which you will find in bold type near the end of these comments and statements. 



We firmly support the three objectives as set forth regarding RR. 2927, THE PLANT VARIETY 

 PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT OF 1993, and endorsed by ASTA. 



We believe H.R. 2927 is important to the plant breeding community, the seed industry, as well as 

 all of American agriculture. 



