save and sell limited quantities of seed — the so-called "farmer's ex- 

 emption." 



Eligibility for protection under the current PVPA requires that 

 varieties be novel, distinct, uniform, and stable. The "unobvious" 

 requirement of patent law, considered a more difficult hurdle, is 

 supplanted in PVPA by "distinctiveness" — a requirement that the 

 variety be unique in one or more identifiable morphological, physi- 

 ological, or other characteristics. Therefore, an obvious, but dis- 

 tinct, new variety may be more easily protected under PVPA. 



The research exemption was included to promote the free flow of 

 germplasm — essential to the maintenance of genetic diversity. The 

 farmers' exemption was included to allow farmers to continue their 

 traditional practice of saving seed for their own planting needs and 

 selling a limited quantity to their neighbors. 



The International Convention for the Protection of New Plant 

 Varieties, which prompted enactment of the PVPA, was revised in 

 1991 as part of the general strengthening of intellectual property 

 rights in the international arena and in response to advancement 

 in both knowledge and technology. Twenty-one countries, including 

 the United States, are now members of the UPOV, and 16 of those 

 members, including the United States, have signed the revised 

 treaty, although none of those has ratified the new treaty to date. 

 Six other countries have breeder rights similar to the UPOV and 

 are expected eventually to comply with UPOV. 



If the United States is going to ratify the revised treaty, S. 1406 

 represents one way to make the conforming changes in the Plant 

 Variety Protection Act. The major changes include: first, extending 

 protection to first generation hybrids; second, lengthening the term 

 of protection to 20 years; third, extending protection to harvested 

 plant parts; fourth, placing additional limits on the farmers' ex- 

 emption; fifth, defining essentially derived and thus providing 

 credit to plant breeders whose property is used in newer varieties; 

 and sixth, modifying a number of definitions to conform to UPOV. 



In preparing this legislation, I asked the Department of Agricul- 

 ture to provide technical assistance in drafting the language neces- 

 sary to bring the PVPA into compliance with the 1991 treaty. The 

 bill in its current form reflects those technical recommendations, 

 nothing more and nothing less. In that respect, this bill should be 

 viewed as a starting point. 



With this in mind, the subcommittee looks forward to hearing 

 testimony from representatives of Government, the seed industry, 

 state regulators, farmers, and others concerned about the proposed 

 changes to the PVPA. We invite you to make additional recommen- 

 dations for what modifications, if any, should be made to this legis- 

 lation and whether, in fact this particular effort is necessary and 

 should move forward. 



I should put all the witnesses on notice that I will be strict about 

 making sure that no one exceeds their alloted time. I will ask the 

 Department to limit its statement to 10 minutes, and I will ask 

 each of the other witnesses to limit their presentation to 5 minutes. 

 Of course, the entire written statement of each witness will be en- 

 tered into the record. 



