120 



To ensure the right of a farmer to save seed for replanting, we urge the Committee to 

 consider establishing a clear legislative history which allows the saved seed exemption to 

 be interpreted in a practical manner recognizing normal farming practices. Specifically, 

 we recommend that the Committee clearly state its intent that the exemption is not 

 limited to the replanting of "saved seed" on the same acre from which it was harvested. 

 Instead, the exemption should be administered in such a way as to allow a "farmer" 

 (individual, partnership, corporation or trust) to plant "saved seed" on any acreage 

 involved in the farming operation, whether the land is rented or owned by the individual, 

 partnership, corporation or trust. Such a reasonable definition of "farm" as used in the 

 PVPA or "holdings" as used in the UPOV will ensure that the spirit of the Act is met 

 without unduly interfering with normal business practices. Consideration should also be 

 given to the administration of the Act when a partnership or corporation holding "saved 

 seed" is dissolved. Farmers are not always individuals working the same acreage year 

 after year. We urge the Committee to clearly state that it is not the intent of Congress 

 to limit ths exemption in extremely narrow terms. 



We also suggest reference in the legislative history to an issue that concerns cotton 

 producers because of the way cotton is processed. Cotton is harvested and delivered to a 

 gin for separation of the lint from the seed. During the ginning process, seed from 

 various farming operations can become co-mingled because the ginning process is a 

 continuous one. We suggest the incidental co-mingling during normal processing be 

 within the intent of the exemption. 



Section 12 of the Act addresses those varieties which have a certificate of plant variety 

 protection, or have one pending on the effective date of the Act. These varieties would 

 be subject to the previous provisions of the PVPA (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), and their 

 treatment would not be changed. We strongly support this provision which ensures 

 producer's are not faced with retroactive restrictions. This transition provision provides 

 producers an assurance that the Act is to be applied in a prospective and fair manner. 

 We strongly support retention of this important provision and ask that the legislative 

 history encourage development of a system which will enable farmers to easily identify 

 seed that is eligible for resale compared to seed that is not. 



We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation. We believe the 

 provision related to the "farmers exemption" and the transition provisions are fair and 

 reasonable and can be properly administered with the addition of clear legislative history. 



We will be pleased to provide additional information or comments at any time. 



Sincerely, 



' 



Jerry Calvani 

 Chairman 



