47 



other farmers, so long as we did not derive more than 50 percent of 

 our income from these sales. 



In 1989 and 1990, we cleaned the seed we harvested and sold it to 

 farmers who had previously delivered their seed to us for cleaning. 

 The price we charged essentially was the market price plus clean- 

 ing and storage. The farmers who bought our cleaned seed saved 

 the cost of transporting their seed back and forth. 



In 1991, we were sued by the Asgrow company, a division of the 

 giant Upjohn Corporation, and what happened after that was just a 

 virtual nightmare. After a brief hearing in the Federal District 

 Court, the judge ruled that our sales violated the PVPA. 



Our attorneys advised us that the judge was flat wrong, and we 

 appealed to the Federal District Court here in Washington, DC, 

 where a unanimous court stated that Denny and I did not violate 

 the PVPA in making these sales. The Federal Court's ruling inter- 

 preted the intent of Congress and helped to clarify and preserve 

 the right of the farmers to save and to sell seed. 



Asgrow has now asked the United States Supreme Court to 

 review this case. 



I can't explain the emotional and financial cost this has been to 

 my family, but there are a number of things that I have learned 

 from this horrible experience and I would like the subcommittee to 

 consider these carefully. 



First of all, the PVPA, the protected varieties that are sold by 

 the seed companies are variations and in sometimes exact varieties 

 that are funded and developed at our State research centers. These 

 research centers have been financed not only with public money 

 but with an excise tax on farmers. 



The UPOV Convention is not the only vehicle for seed companies 

 to increase their breeders' rights. Many seed companies are now in- 

 cluding a purchase agreement that has to be signed between the 

 farmer and the seller that will not allow a farmer to use any of his 

 seed for the next year's holdings. This means he has to buy new 

 seed every single year. I'm sure this is the intent all along. 



Granting seed companies a virtual monopoly on their registered 

 seed will cause the seed prices to increase dramatically. In France, 

 the seed costs are up to seven times greater than here in America. 



Perhaps one of the most important things that I have learned is 

 that allowing farmers to sell their saved seed will have no greater 

 effect on the seed companies than it is now to allow them to 

 merely save their own seed for replanting. 



Mr. Chairman, Denny and I had to replant our crop four times 

 this spring because of the Iowa floods. We have lost our entire corn 

 crop. Because of a freeze last week, we have virtually lost our 

 entire soybean crop also. We are not going to have enough seed to 

 replant our own fields, and if the amendments will not allow us to 

 buy it from our neighboring farmers, we will be forced to pay for 

 the very expensive seed, and I don't know how we would be able to 

 continue. 



These are the things that I hope that you will consider on how it 

 affects the smaller farmer. I am convinced that once all of the 

 issues are considered carefully, that you will conclude that the cen- 

 turies-old right of farmers to sell seed which they have grown to 

 other farmers must be preserved. 



